SC Clubs 81 FIRs Against Builder; Grants Six-Month Temporary Bail To Facilitate Settlement With Home Buyers

The Supreme Court held that clubbing FIRs arising from the same transaction is permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and protect the larger interest of victims. It ordered the clubbing of 81 FIRs registered against real estate developer Alok Kumar into a single case, holding that all subsequent FIRs, past and future, on the same subject will be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC.The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, applying the principle in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P. (2023), observed that indefinite incarceration would not aid home buyers, and a practical approach was needed to facilitate settlement of claims.BackgroundAlok Kumar and Agrani Homes face multiple criminal cases filed by home buyers alleging cheating and non-delivery of flats. The first FIR was lodged on January 11, 2018, at Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, under Sections 420 IPC and 138 NI Act. Over time, the number of FIRs increased to 81, with the total alleged liability pegged by the petitioner at ₹13.94 crore.The Patna High Court, in February 2025, declined to club all FIRs, though it had earlier ordered a consolidated investigation for cases registered with the Economic Offences Unit. Kumar, in custody since October 2022, approached the Supreme Court seeking (i) clubbing of FIRs and (ii) bail.Court's FindingsThe Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noted that keeping the petitioner in prolonged custody would not serve the home buyers' interests. Instead, a practical approach was necessary to facilitate settlements and the recovery of dues.Referring to Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P. (2023) 14 SCC 805, the Court reiterated that where multiple FIRs arise from the same transaction or series of connected acts, clubbing is permissible, with subsequent FIRs being treated as witness statements under Section 161 CrPC.“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 said.The Court observed that Kumar had already deposited ₹4 crore with the Registry and had undertaken, along with his son, to settle the remaining ₹9.94 crore within six months. Affidavits detailing his and his companies' properties were also placed on record, with a direction not to alienate them without prior court permission.Thus, the Supreme Court held that the FIRs shall be clubbed, treating the 2018 one as the main FIR with all other existing and future FIRs (on the same subject) treated as Section 161 CrPC statements. He is granted six-month temporary bail upon execution of a ₹5 lakh bond with one solvent surety, surrender of passport, fortnightly appearance before Shastri Nagar Police Station, and prohibition on transferring any immovable property without leave of the Court.SC also ordered the petitioner to deposit ₹9.94 crore within six months, clarifying that the sum is not a full and final settlement and will be distributed among home buyers.The petition has been drafted by Advocate Varun Singh Case Title: Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar&OrsCase No.r Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4073/2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv, Mr. Varun Singh. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR, Mr. Ytharth Kumar,Mr. Mohammad Atif Ahmed, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Mr. Sudeep ChandraFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. S.D.Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Diyam Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. Punit Kumar, Ms. Silki Trehan, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Akash Kumar, Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Ms. Prerna Singh.Click Here To Read/Download Order

SC Clubs 81 FIRs Against Builder; Grants Six-Month Temporary Bail To Facilitate Settlement With Home Buyers

Rizmi Lia

Tags