Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Patna Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held that the petitioner had been unlawfully kept in custody for several days after a bail order had already directed his release, and consequently directed the State to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation, recoverable from the responsible official . The matter arose from the petitioner’s continued confinement in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, despite the expiry of the production warrant on which the jail authorities claimed to rely. The Court found that his detention lacked any valid judicial sanction and therefore infringed his right to personal liberty, and also directed issuance of guidelines to prevent similar lapses.

The petitioner was lodged in the Central Jail, Gaya in connection with an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He was granted bail on 23.09.2025 by the competent court, and a release warrant dated 29.09.2025 was issued and communicated to the Jail Superintendent. Before this release order reached the jail, a production warrant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, had been issued for his appearance on 04.09.2025 in another case. The jail authorities informed the concerned courts and the Senior Superintendent of Police about the requirement of force and transportation for producing the petitioner, but no record of further action from the police was placed before the Court.

Also Read: Company Buying Software To Enhance Efficiency And Profit Is Not A “Consumer” Under Consumer Protection Act; Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal In Software Licence Dispute

According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner was not produced in the Buxar court on the scheduled date despite the warrant. After receiving the bail release order, the jail authorities continued to keep the petitioner confined on the basis of the earlier production warrant, even though the date fixed in that warrant had already lapsed.

The petitioner appeared virtually before the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar on 04.10.2025 and was remanded until 17.10.2025. Prior to this virtual appearance, the jail authorities acknowledged in written communication that the petitioner remained in custody after the release order on the strength of the expired production warrant. Statutory references were made to the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerning the validity of production warrants and the obligation to release an accused once such warrants lose effect.

The Court observed that the matter raised “an issue of serious concern for a Constitutional Court” and recorded that the petitioner continued in custody after the release warrant had been communicated. It noted the absence of any further response from the police authorities, stating that “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.”

Referring to the Jail Superintendent’s communication dated 06.10.2025, the Court recorded that he stated “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 noted the submission that “once the date fixed in the production warrant expired and the order of release had already reached… he had no option but to release the petitioner.”

The Bench stated that “during the intervening period, there was no authorized detention of the petitioner.” Addressing the explanation relating to holidays, the Court recorded that “even during Durga Puja Holidays, an In-charge Court is always available… therefore, it cannot be allowed to be contended that the illegal detention… was due to any reason beyond the control of the Jail Superintendent.”

The Court recorded the Inspector General of Prisons’ acknowledgement when he stated “Yes, there is an illegal detention for at least five days.”

The Bench then observed: “there being an admitted position that it is a case of unauthorized detention of the petitioner from 29.09.2025 until 04.10.2025 and this practice is going on without drawing much attention of the Department, this Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a silent spectator.”

Also Read: Patna High Court Dismisses RJD MLA's Bail Plea To Campaign In Bihar Polls; Election Canvassing Not A Fundamental Right And Stresses Need To Keep Criminal Elements Out Of Politics

The Court directed that “a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be a reasonable amount which may be awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation for his unauthorized detention by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee. The I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services is directed to issue appropriate guidelines to all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Bihar requiring them to strictly abide by the Constitutional Mandate and order of the Court without any exception. Such guideline shall be issued within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent State of Bihar shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/-… within one month from today” and that “the amount so paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

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

Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh vs. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2761 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Justice Sourendra Pandey