Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-9 for the State.

2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa has appeared through video conferencing and we have interacted with him.

3. This writ application was taken up for consideration yesterday. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, we have recorded our prima-facie view in the order dated 02.12.2025. The said order is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:—

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC-9 for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate, Saharsa (Respondent No. 3) passed the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 465 dated 20.05.2025 without considering the show cause (Annexure ‘P/2’). In his show cause, the petitioner had explained that there were two cases against him. In the first case being Mahishi P.S. Case No. 70 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 41, 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the petitioner was falsely implicated as the liquor was found from a lonely place. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court had been pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39852 of 2023 on 30.10.2023. In the second case being Mahishi P.S. Case No. 284 of 2024 under Sections 223, 292, 296, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, the allegation was that a programme of Orchestra was organized in a government school campus.

3. Learned counsel submits that Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 (in short ‘BCC Act’) empowers a District Magistrate to pass an order in terms of subsection 3(a) and sub-section 3(b) of Section 3 of the BCC Act. The twin conditions mentioned under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the BCC Act are required to be fulfilled before passing an order in terms of subsection (3) of Section 3 of the BCC Act. His submission is that against the petitioner, there was no material before the District Magistrate to take a view that he was causing or was likely to cause any danger or harm to any person or property and that his activities cannot be prevented without removing him from the specified place or places. His submission is that at the instance of some local rivals and in the village politics, a report was sent to the District Magistrate through the Officer-in-Charge, Jalai and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Saharsa.

4. Learned counsel submits that the District Magistrate, Saharsa not only passed an order for externment of the petitioner outside the jurisdiction of the Jalai Police Station to Basnahi Police Station in the district of Saharsa, he also ordered in the same breath that the petitioner shall physically appear in Basnahi Police Station every day from 09:00 AM to 11:00 AM and from 05:00 PM to 08:00 PM. It is submitted that the kind of order passed by the District Magistrate is not in accordance with law and this is nothing but causing immense hardship to the petitioner and in the condition of this kind of order, the petitioner had to, in fact, travel every day 60 kilometers from his ordinary place of residence to Basnahi Police Station. The distance was about 60 kilometers from one side. By passing such order, the petitioner who was having a kirana shop was not able to run his shop and thereby, he was rendered helpless in earning his livelihood.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The stand of the State is that the petitioner was engaged in carrying illegal activities and the local people had been feeling some threat, therefore, the police acted lawfully for resorting the confidence among the villagers. It is contended that the District Magistrate, Saharsa has passed the impugned order only after hearing the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The order is also based on the proposal submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Office