Supreme Court Orders Clubbing Of 81 FIRs Against Builder | Grants Six-Month Temporary Bail On Condition To Deposit ₹9.94 Crore | Court Warns Keeping Him In Jail Serves No Purpose For Home Buyers
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has directed that multiple criminal cases pending against a petitioner engaged in real estate development be consolidated into one, while simultaneously granting temporary bail subject to strict financial conditions. The Court recorded that the first information report registered on 11 January 2018 shall be treated as the main FIR, with all other FIRs being considered as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Additionally, the Bench ordered the petitioner’s release on temporary bail for a period of six months, conditional upon the deposit of Rs. 9.94 crore with the Registry of the Supreme Court and adherence to specified undertakings filed before it. The Bench stated that indefinite incarceration would not advance the interest of aggrieved home buyers and instead sought to facilitate settlement of claims.
The matter arose from multiple criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a director of a company named Agrani Homes, engaged in the business of real estate development. The company was involved in the construction of residential apartments and commercial buildings. According to the record before the Court, as many as 81 FIRs were registered against the petitioner and the company. These FIRs had been lodged primarily by home buyers who alleged that the petitioner and his company collected substantial amounts of money for housing projects but failed to deliver possession of flats.
The petitioner asserted that the total liability arising from these 81 FIRs amounted to Rs. 13,94,00,357. However, the respondents strongly disputed this figure. The first FIR was registered on 11 January 2018 at Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This subsequently culminated in a pending criminal case before the Court of ACJM-IX, Patna, Sadar, Bihar.
The petitioner had been in custody since 14 October 2022. It was noted that he had obtained bail in 10 of the cases but remained incarcerated due to other pending matters. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, by order dated 7 February 2025 in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1523 of 2023, declined the request to club all FIRs filed against the petitioner and the company. However, the High Court had earlier, by order dated 2 August 2023 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1150 of 2022, ordered clubbing of investigations of all such cases with the Economic Offences Unit, but stopped short of directing formal consolidation of FIRs.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of the High Court to club the FIRs. He sought two principal reliefs: consolidation of all FIRs into one proceeding, and grant of bail. On 20 March 2025, the Supreme Court recorded the existence of 78 FIRs at that time, noting allegations that the petitioner had floated housing schemes, collected about Rs. 13 crore from home buyers, and failed to construct the promised flats. The Bench recorded the petitioner’s submission that the Rs. 13 crore figure reflected amounts mentioned in FIRs but that additional sums may have also been collected. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for two years and indicated willingness to consider both prayers subject to deposit of a reasonable amount.
On 1 April 2025, the petitioner’s senior counsel informed the Court that Rs. 3.17 crore had already been paid to certain home buyers, and further, that the petitioner was willing to deposit Rs. 3 crores more and offer property valued at Rs. 4 crores in his mother’s name by way of security. The Court directed, instead, that the petitioner deposit Rs. 4 crores in cash with the Registry, to be invested in a nationalized bank in short-term fixed deposit with auto-renewal facility. The Court also clarified that upon such deposit, it would consider bail and consolidation of FIRs.
In compliance, the petitioner deposited Rs. 4 crores. Subsequently, undertakings were filed. On 6 August 2025, the petitioner himself and his son Shashwat submitted affidavits. The petitioner undertook to settle or file proof of settlement of the remaining liability of Rs. 9.94 crore within six months from release. His son further undertook to be personally bound by this commitment in case of default. On 11 August 2025, another affidavit was filed listing properties owned by the petitioner and the company, including one residential flat in the petitioner’s own name, seven properties in the company’s name, and sixty-two properties for which development agreements had been executed. The affidavit undertook not to transfer or create third party rights in any such property without prior permission of the Court.
The Court noted that indefinite custody of the petitioner would not advance the cause of home buyers and that an opportunity should be given to him to settle outstanding claims, including decrees obtained before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
The Supreme Court recorded its reasoning in clear terms. It observed, “Keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period of time is not going to serve any good purpose, so far as the interest of the home buyers is concerned.” The Court sought to strike a balance between protecting the interests of home buyers and ensuring that liabilities were addressed.
The Court stated, “We would like to take a practical view of the matter only keeping in mind the interest of the home buyers.” The Bench considered that the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 4 crore and had filed undertakings to settle the remaining amount. It thus held that granting temporary bail subject to strict conditions would be an appropriate course.
Regarding consolidation of cases, the Court observed, “the first thing that we should do is to order clubbing of all the 81 FIRs/Criminal Cases registered against the petitioner.” It directed that the first FIR dated 11 January 2018 be treated as the main FIR and that all other FIRs be treated as statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. The Bench expressly referred to its earlier precedent in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2023 (14) SCC 805.
The Court further clarified, “Any FIR that may be registered against the petitioner and the Company in future with respect to delivery of property to home buyers shall also be treated as a Statement under Section 161 of the CrPC.”
The Bench noted the affidavits filed by both the petitioner and his son Shashwat on 6 August 2025. Quoting from these, the Court recorded: “That as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court on 05.08.2025, I hereby undertake to file proof of settlement or settle the balance amount of Rs. 9,94,00,357 with respect to all 81 FIRs against the Petitioner within 6 months from the date of release, if not already settled prior to filing of the instant Petition.” The Court also recorded the son’s undertaking: “That in case the Petitioner fails to file proof of settlement or settle the balance amount... within 6 months from the date of release, I would also be personally bound by the said undertaking given by the Petitioner.”
The affidavit dated 11 August 2025 was also noted, wherein the petitioner listed properties owned by him and his company. The Court recorded, “That the Petitioner agrees that the Petitioner shall take the permission of this Court before selling any property registered in his name or in the name of his company, as mentioned in the list annexed hereto.”
The Bench also took note of a subsequent affidavit filed by Shashwat on 11 August 2025 confirming the list of properties and reiterating that permission would be obtained before any sale.
The Supreme Court ordered that all 81 FIRs registered against the petitioner be clubbed. The first FIR dated 11 January 2018 at Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, was directed to be treated as the main FIR, with all others deemed statements under Section 161 CrPC. The Court further directed that any future FIRs relating to delivery of property to home buyers against the petitioner or his company would also be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC.
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on temporary bail for six months upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,00,000 with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conditions of bail were imposed. The Court directed surrender of the petitioner’s passport within eight days to the Registry of the Supreme Court. If the passport was with RERA authorities, they were directed to hand it over to the Registry. The petitioner was directed to mark his presence once in a fortnight on every Sunday at Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna. He was prohibited from transferring or creating third party rights in any property registered in his name or his company’s name without the Court’s prior permission.
The Court explicitly clarified, “We make it explicitly clear that the deposit of Rs.9,94,00,357 should not be construed by the petitioner as full and final settlement of all the dues and claims. This amount ultimately has to be distributed amongst all the home buyers.” The Bench ordered that the petitioner deposit this sum with the Registry of the Supreme Court within six months to enable settlement with home buyers.
The Court expressed, “We hope that the petitioner is able to make the most of this indulgence granted by us, keeping in mind only the interest of the home buyers.” It further directed that in the event of failure to deposit the amount within six months, it may proceed to cancel the bail or withdraw the temporary relief granted.
The Court clarified that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority retained the right to execute decrees in accordance with law, and that proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate would continue independently.
The matter was directed to be listed before the Bench on 24 February 2026 along with pending intervention applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate; Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR; Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Mohammad Atif Ahmed, Advocate; Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Advocate; Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR; Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR; Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate; Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Advocate; Mr. Diyam Aggarwal, Advocate; Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Advocate; Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR; Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR; Mr. Punit Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Silki Trehan, Advocate; Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Advocate; Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate
Case Title: Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 4073/2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
