Successive FIRs After Bail Only To Prolong Custody Abuse Of Process; Fit Case To Invoke Article 32 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that successive registration of FIRs to keep an accused in custody, despite the grant of bail, amounts to an abuse of process and warrants intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that the State had repeatedly invoked the criminal process to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 continued to “languish behind the bars,” even after bail was granted.

The controversy traces back to an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, on May 20, 2025, under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the petitioner was being questioned in the First FIR, another FIR was registered by ACB Hazaribagh relating to the alleged mutation of forest land in 2010, i.e., after 15 years of the alleged time of the incident.

Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered in 2025

The petitioners argued that this sequence of events revealed a concerted attempt to circumvent judicial orders granting bail and to maintain the accused's continued custody.

Allowing a writ petition, a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale ordered their release, while also rejecting the contention advanced by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi that the availability of an alternative remedy of bail would bar the Court from entertaining a writ petition under the Constitution of India.

“This Court on many occasions have reiterated the said fundamental principle of Article 32 of the Constitution of India and it has been emphasized that this Court will not readily refuse to hear a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India if there is violation of the fundamental right is prima facie established, by keeping in mind the similar powers granted to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”, observed the Court, quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's description of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.

Finding force in the petitioner's contention, the Court observed that the respondents' continued acts and conduct established that the petitioners were intentionally kept behind bars:

“…this Court is fully satisfied the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep petitioner No.1 within the custody and we are also fortified by the fact that on grant of bail by this Court on 17.12.2025, petitioner No.1 has been remanded to custodial interrogation by order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in FIR No.458/2025 and again further remand was granted for seven days as against the prayer of fourteen days by the order dated 20.12.2025 in FIR No.20/2025 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. These continued acts and conduct of the prosecution would clearly establish that the respondents have consciously ensure that petitioner No.1 is kept in custody.”

“we allow this appeal directing 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.”, the court ordered, allowing the petition.

Cause Title: BINAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. 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. Samir Malik, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.