Successive FIRs To Keep Accused In Custody Despite Bail Abuse Of Process; Article 32 Writ Allowed: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed a writ petition under Article 32 after finding that the State’s successive registration of FIRs, aimed at keeping an accused in continued custody despite the grant of bail, amounted to an abuse of process warranting constitutional intervention. The petitioners alleged that the criminal process was repeatedly invoked so that Petitioner No. 1 remained incarcerated even after bail orders. Accepting this grievance on the facts before it, the Court directed that Petitioner No. 1 be released forthwith on bail in the later FIRs and ordered that no coercive steps be taken against Petitioner No. 2, subject to cooperation with the investigation.
The petitioners invoked Article 32 seeking protection against repeated criminal proceedings and release on bail in connection with multiple FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi and Hazaribagh. Petitioner No.1 was initially called for inquiry in an FIR alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to alleged irregularities in land mutation and excise policy matters. During investigation, another FIR was registered arraigning him as an accused. Subsequent FIRs were registered on 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025.
Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court
The petitioners contended that successive FIRs were lodged to defeat bail and keep petitioner No.1 in custody. The State opposed the writ petition, contending that the petitioner had alternative remedies and that custodial interrogation was necessary in view of alleged large-scale irregularities. The matter was heard along with a connected appeal concerning grant of bail in one of the FIRs.
The Court referred to Article 32 and recorded that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had described it as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, observing that it empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
On the facts, the Court noted that petitioner No.1 was called for investigation in one FIR and, on the same day, another FIR was registered relating to alleged mutation of forest land in 2010. It recorded that “the mutation entry having taken place in the year 2010 with the approval of hierarchy of Revenue Officials yet for fifteen long years, they did not pursue the matter and only in the year 2025, the said FIR has been registered.”
While considering the sequence of bail proceedings, the Court observed: “It is rather intriguing and aghast, we notice that while submissions were being made before this Court on 17.12.2025, there was not even a whisper with regard to FIR No.20/2025 or FIR No.458/2025.”
Regarding subsequent FIRs, the Court recorded that “the subsequent or succeeding FIRs registered against the petitioners prima facie seems to be to ensure that petitioner No.1 is kept in continued custody despite the order of bail granted by this Court and to trunk it to the said order.” It further stated that “cooperation of the accused in the investigation does not necessarily mean and include that the accused would be rendering the confession to suit the convenience of the prosecution.”
The Court concluded that “the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep petitioner No.1 within the custody” and that the continued remand orders following grant of bail “would clearly establish that the respondents have consciously ensure that petitioner No.1 is kept in custody.”
The Court directed that “petitioner No.1 is entitled to be released forthwith on bail in FIR No.20/2025 registered on 24.11.2025 and FIR No.458/2025 registered on 26.11.2025” and clarified that since he was not an accused in FIR No.9/2025, “for which he has already been granted anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Court, we do not propose to pass any orders in that regard.”
In respect of petitioner No.2, the Court ordered that “no coercive steps shall be taken against her subject to the condition that she shall cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In the connected criminal appeal, the Court recorded the submission of the State that it had no objection to making the interim order absolute and directed that “the appellant to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court may impose including the conditions of directing the appellant to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted and cooperating with the investigation.” “Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate; Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Senior Advocate
Case Title: Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55/2026 with Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2026
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
