New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that successive registration of FIRs with the intent to keep an accused person in custody despite the grant of bail amounts to an abuse of the criminal process and warrants intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution, which Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Binay Kumar Singh and another petitioner, who alleged that the State of Jharkhand had repeatedly invoked the criminal process to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 continued to “languish behind bars” even after bail was granted by courts.
The case involved multiple FIRs registered by different agencies of the Jharkhand government against the petitioners. The chronology of events revealed a disturbing pattern of successive FIR registrations, which the Court found to be a calculated attempt to circumvent judicial orders granting bail.
The first FIR, No. 9/2025, was registered on May 20, 2025, by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 7(c), 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner No. 1 was called upon to appear before the ACB for inquiry.
While Petitioner No. 1 was being questioned in connection with FIR No. 9/2025, on the same day, the ACB, Hazaribagh, registered FIR No. 11/2025, arraying him as an accused. This FIR related to the alleged mutation of forest land in the names of the petitioners in 2010 with the alleged connivance of government officials.
The petitioner’s brother filed a writ petition challenging the arrest, which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on October 17, 2025. A Special Leave Petition challenging this dismissal was filed before the Supreme Court, which issued notice on a bail application.
While these proceedings were ongoing, two more FIRs were registered — FIR No. 20/2025 on November 24, 2025, and FIR No. 458/2025 on November 26, 2025.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a bail application in B.A. No. 10499/2025 on December 4, 2025, following which Petitioner No. 1 was remanded to judicial custody in FIR No. 458/2025.
Significantly, when the Supreme Court heard the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s order and granted interim bail on December 17, 2025, the State authorities did not even mention the existence of FIR No. 20/2025 or FIR No. 458/2025 during the proceedings.
More tellingly, despite the Supreme Court granting interim bail on December 17, 2025, the jurisdictional Magistrate passed orders on December 19, 2025, and December 20, 2025, remanding Petitioner No. 1 to custodial interrogation in FIR No. 458/2025 and FIR No. 20/2025, respectively.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate appearing for the State of Jharkhand, contended that the petitioners had the remedy of seeking bail before the jurisdictional High Court and that the writ petition should not be entertained. He argued that there had been large-scale irregularities under the Jharkhand Excise Policy and that preliminary inquiries revealed that the petitioners had purchased forest land and got mutation done in connivance with government officials, warranting custodial interrogation.
He also drew the Court’s attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the State on January 19, 2026, which mentioned the registration of the subsequent FIRs.
However, the Court noted that this counter-affidavit was filed only on January 19, 2026 — well after interim bail was granted on December 17, 2025 — and that there was “not even a whisper” about the subsequent FIRs during the hearing on that date.
The Supreme Court began its analysis by invoking the fundamental importance of Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court recalled Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s characterization of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as it empowers any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
The Court emphasized that it has repeatedly reiterated that it will not readily refuse to hear a petition under Article 32 if a violation of fundamental rights is prima facie established, keeping in mind the similar powers granted to the High Courts under Article 226.
The Court noted an “intriguing” aspect of the case: the mutation entry having allegedly taken place in 2010 with the approval of a hierarchy of revenue officials, yet for fifteen long years, the authorities did not pursue the matter, and only in 2025 was the FIR registered. While the Court refrained from examining the correctness of this FIR registration at this stage to avoid prejudicing the parties’ rights, it left a clear indication of its skepticism.
Addressing the State’s argument about non-cooperation with the investigation, the Court observed that “cooperation of the accused in the investigation does not necessarily mean or include that the accused would render a confession to suit the convenience of the prosecution.” The Court held that allegations of non-cooperation should be “considered with a pinch of salt.”
The Court held:
“In the instant case, this Court is fully satisfied that the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure that petitioner No. 1 remains in custody…”
The Court therefore concluded that the continued acts and conduct of the prosecution clearly established that the respondents had consciously ensured that Petitioner No. 1 was kept in custody.
For these cumulative reasons, the Court held that Petitioner No. 1 was entitled to be released forthwith on bail in FIR No. 20/2025 and FIR No. 458/2025. Since he was not an accused in FIR No. 9/2025 and had already been granted anticipatory bail in another matter, the Court did not pass any orders in that regard.
Regarding Petitioner No. 2, who had not yet been arrested, the Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against her, subject to the condition that she shall cooperate with the investigation.
In the connected criminal appeal, the Court made the interim bail granted on December 17, 2025, absolute, noting that the State had fairly submitted that it had no objection in view of the chargesheet having been filed on December 22, 2025.
Appearances:
For Petitioners: Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Samir Malik, AOR; Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv.; Ms. Himangi Kapoor, Adv.; Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.; Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv.; Mr. Sivanandh Lahiri, Adv.; Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR; Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv.; Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
Case Title:
Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55/2026; Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2026 arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 20248/2025)
