Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to AG for the State as also Mr. Pranav Kumar, I.G. Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar who is present through online/virtual mode.

2. This writ application was taken up for consideration on 12.11.2025. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG, this Court passed the following order: –

“Order Dated 12.11.2025

This writ application is raising an issue of serious concern for a Constitutional Court. It is well said that a Constitutional Court acts as a guardian to protect the fundamental rights of a citizen when it comes to protect his Right to Life and Liberty. In the present case, the petitioner was confined in the Central Jail at Gaya Jee in connection with Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025 registered on 31.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2016’). In the said case, he was granted bail vide order dated 23.09.2025 by the competent Court and the learned Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Court No. 2, Gaya Jee issued a warrant to release him unless he is liable to be detained for some other matter. The warrant of release dated 29.09.2025 was communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail at Gaya Jee.

2. What happened thereafter are some disturbing features of this case. It appears that prior to receipt of the warrant to release, the Superintendent of Jail, Gaya Jee had received a production warrant from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar requiring production of the petitioner in connection with Buxar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 has been filed enclosing certain documents. Annexure ‘R-1/B’ is the order requiring production of the petitioner in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar (Bihar) on 04.09.2025 by 10:00 AM as he was involved in a case of theft punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. Despite receipt of the production warrant, the Superintendent of Jail, Gaya Jee did not produce the petitioner in the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Buxar on 04.09.2025. Annexure ‘R-1/C’, Annexure ‘R-1/D’ and Annexure ‘R-1/E’ have been brought on record with the counter affidavit to show that the Superintendent of Jail, Gaya Jee informed the learned court of Exclusive Special Judge, Excise, 2nd Gaya Jee, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar with regard to the requirement to produce the petitioner in the light of the production warrant. The Superintendent of Jail was looking for adequate force and vehicle with fuel from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee in order to produce the petitioner in Buxar Court. The respondents have not brought on record any other communication by way of response from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee. It is also not clear whether the court at Gaya Jee was moved for seeking an order to take the petitioner to Buxar Court. The fact remains that even after his release order (Annexure ‘R-1/F’), the petitioner continued in detention.

3. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the communication as contained in Letter No. 9322/Jail dated 06.10.2025 written by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gaya Jee to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee wherein he has clearly recorded that after receipt of the release order from the local court, the petitioner has been released but had been kept confined on the strength of a production warrant. It is to be kept in mind that the date fixed in the production warrant was 04.09.2025 which had already expired. This is why it has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of Section 304 read with Section 305 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, once the date fixed in the production warrant expired and the