IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2761 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2025 Thana- Sarbahada District- Gaya ======================================================

Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh, Son of Rajendra Sisngh, Resident of Village-

Dhurva, P.S.- Nagar, Dist- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary (Home), Police Dept.

Bihar, Patna

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

3. The Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna

4. The Jail Superintendent , Central Jail Dist- Gaya

5. The Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, Dist- Gaya

6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dist- Gaya

7. The SHO Sarbahda Police Station, Dist-Saran

8. The District Magistrate, Gaya

9. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya

10. The Officer-in-Charge, Sarbahda P.S., Dist- Gaya ... ... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to A.G.

Mr. Pranav Kumar, IG Prisons (online/virtual mode)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 13-11-2025 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, 2^nd 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