Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. This writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda in B.C.C.A. Case No. 178 of 2025 and B.C.C.A. Case no. 182 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the District Magistrate had imposed Section 3 of Sub-Section (3) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BCC Act') against the petitioners and ordered certain restrictions and condition for the petitioners.

Brief facts of the Case

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in different criminal cases in which they are on bail and ready to face trial.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the Assembly Election and Chhath Festival, the S.D.P.O. Rajgir had submitted report disclosing their criminal history. On the basis of that report, the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda has recommended the petitioners as anti-social elements, which resulted in the registration of B.C.C.A. Case No. 178 of 2025 and B.C.C.A. Case No. 183 of 2025 against them.

5. After registration of the aforesaid cases, the District Magistrate, Nalanda issued show cause notices to the petitioners on 10.09.2025 which has been brought on the record vide Annexure 'P/1 series' to the writ petition. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause stating that they are innocent and their implication is because of the village politics.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the provisions of the BCC Act do not get attracted against them only due to their implication in multiple criminal cases.

7. It is stated that the District Magistrate, Nalanda without considering the reply of the petitioners passed the order dated 10.10.2025 in BCCA Case No. 183 of 2025 under Section 3 of the BCC Act imposing certain restrictions and conditions on them. These orders have been impugned in this writ petition which have been brought on record vide Annexure 'P/2 Series'.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that the orders impugned are bad in law against the provisions of BCC Act.

Stand of the State

9. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of respondent no. 2 stating that on the recommendation of the SDPO, Rajgir Nalanda, a proposal was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda which resulted in proceeding under Section 3 of the BCC Act against the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners have criminal antecedents and they are habitual offender. It is stated that though they are on bail in the cases registered against them but their conduct remained suspicious. The petitioners were trying to make their influence in the locality, as a result thereof there was reasonable apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of law and order particularly during the Assembly Election and Chhath Festival. It is stated that as per the police inputs, the petitioners are anti-social elements.

10. It is stated that the petitioners failed to submit any cogent material in support of their defence before the District Magistrate, Nalanda and accordingly, it was held that the free movement of the petitioners would cause problem to law and order in the locality.

11. Although in the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 has mentioned about five cases against the petitioners lodged in Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S., out of which is one case Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S. Case No. 185 of 2024 registered under Section 379/411 IPC and under Rule 11/43/56 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2019’) and Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1985 within two years, the counter affidavit does not mention about registration of Sanha. We will, however, rely upon the notice to show-cause issued under Section 3 by respondent no.2 to the petitioners. The writ petition states that by this notice, the petitioners w