Slamming DM’s ‘cut-and-paste’ orders, Patna High Court orders State to pay Rs 1 lakh each to 2 men

The petitioners said they had been falsely implicated in criminal cases, were on bail and were prepared to face trial.

The Patna High Court has set aside orders restricting the movement of two Nalanda residents under the Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024, holding that the District Magistrate had proceeded on a “general and stereotype” basis without recording the satisfaction required under the law.

A division bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra also directed the Bihar government to pay Rs 1 lakh each to Shashi Kumar alias Fukan and Ajay Singh, besides Rs 10,000 each towards litigation costs. The court further directed the state to recover the compensation and costs from the officials found responsible, after giving them an opportunity of hearing.

The judgment, delivered on September 11 and made public on Tuesday, arose from proceedings initiated against the two men after the Nalanda Superintendent of Police, acting on a proposal submitted by the Rajgir SDPO, recommended proceedings against them, and the police authorities described them as “anti-social elements”.

The proceedings followed a report submitted by the SDPO during the Assembly election and Chhath festival period in 2025, which disclosed their criminal history.

The petitioners said they had been falsely implicated in criminal cases, were on bail and were prepared to face trial. They also contended that their cases stemmed from village politics. The State, however, maintained that the two had criminal antecedents, were habitual offenders and that their conduct had created a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of law and order.

The High Court found that the show-cause notices referred to four criminal cases and one Sanha. However, on examining the statutory definition of an “anti-social element”, the bench noted that the law required, in the relevant 24-month period, at least two cases in which police reports had been filed before a court showing involvement in offences covered by the Act.

“In the preceding 24 months, only one chargesheet is said to have been filed,” the court observed, referring to a case registered under provisions concerning theft and illegal mining-related offences.

The bench was also critical of how the District Magistrate dealt with the petitioners’ replies. Although the replies were acknowledged in the impugned orders, the court said they were not properly considered.

“We have noticed from the pattern of the order(s) passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda … that the orders are in the nature of cut and paste,” the bench said, adding that the similarity in language and grounds “instantly gives us an impression that the orders have been passed with total non-application of judicious mind.”

The court further held that the authorities had failed to distinguish between “law and order” and “public order”. Referring to earlier Supreme Court judgments, it reiterated that every breach of law and order does not necessarily amount to a disturbance of public order and that the latter must involve an impact on the community or public at large.

The restrictions required the petitioners to mark their attendance every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at Silao Police Station, around 40 km away. They were also restricted from leaving the police station’s jurisdiction without providing reasons and the period for which they needed to travel outside it.

The court noted that neither petitioner was accused in any case registered with Silao Police Station. It also found no explanation in the State’s counter affidavit for directing them to report at that police station.

“Perhaps the District Magistrate, Nalanda … has not even gone through the rules framed under the BCC Rule, 1978,” the bench observed.

The court also recorded that, during the hearing, it had specifically sought material showing that allegations contained in the Sanha had been verified. The State later informed the court that no verification report or other material was available on record.

The bench concluded that the DM had passed the orders without arriving at the required subjective satisfaction regarding the correctness of the police proposal. It also held that the SP, the SDPO, and the Giriyak Police Station SHO had acted in haste without verifying the allegations made in the Sanha.

“We are afraid, such kind of police action in haste, just to stop someone from being a part of the Assembly Election, is not going to help the administration at all and in all probability, it would bring bad repute to the District Administration,” the court said.

Holding that the petitioners had been compelled to undergo the restrictions for three months, the court set aside the impugned orders and awarded compensation. It directed the State government to make the payments within one month.

A few weeks ago, during a bureaucratic reshuffle across several districts and departments, the Bihar government had transferred the Nalanda DM and SP to Patna and Siwan, respectively.