SUCCESSIVE FIRS AFTER BAIL ONLY TO PROLONG CUSTODY ABUSE OF PROCESS; FIT CASE TO INVOKE ARTICLE 32

Introduction
In Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55/2026, along with Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2026 (SLP (Crl.) No. 20248/2025), the Supreme Court dealt with allegations of repeated invocation of the criminal process to keep an accused in custody despite bail orders. The Bench comprised Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the order on February 10, 2026.

Factual background
The dispute arose from multiple criminal proceedings initiated against Petitioner No. 1, who was first called to appear before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi in FIR registered for alleged offences under the IPC (including cheating, forgery, breach of trust, abetment provisions) and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A separate challenge to the alleged illegal arrest was earlier mounted by Petitioner No. 1’s Brother through a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on 17.10.2025. Thereafter, proceedings reached the Supreme Court, in which liberty was granted to apply for bail in FIR and notice was issued on the bail application.
While this bail litigation was underway, two further FIRs were registered. On 28.11.2025, the Supreme Court noted that a bail application was pending before the Jharkhand High Court and requested expeditious disposal, preferably within one week. The High Court dismissed bail on 04.12.2025 and Petitioner No. 1 was remanded to judicial custody in FIR No. 458/2025.
Petitioner No. 1 then approached the Supreme Court by SLP (Crl.) No. 20248/2025, and interim bail was granted on 17.12.2025, later made absolute. The Petitioners’ broader grievance, brought through Article 32 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 55/2026, was that successive FIRs and related steps were being used to negate the practical effect of bail and to keep Petitioner No. 1 continuously incarcerated.

Contentions of parties
The Petitioners contended that after Petitioner No. 1 was summoned in the ACB Ranchi matter, the authorities, failing to obtain a confession “to suit their convenience”, began lodging FIRs one after another to ensure that even if bail was granted by courts (including the Supreme Court), it would not translate into actual liberty. They sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that repeated deployment of criminal process was arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21, bail for Petitioner No. 1 in the later FIRs, protection against coercive steps for Petitioner No. 2 and restraint against further FIRs without the Supreme Court’s leave.
The State resisted the Article 32 petition on maintainability and merits, asserting that the Petitioners had ordinary remedies such as applying for bail before the jurisdictional courts and High Court and that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as though it were a substitute for statutory procedure. The State also claimed that the subsequent FIRs related to serious allegations (including irregularities under the Jharkhand Excise Policy and issues regarding mutation of forest land allegedly in connivance with officials) and that custodial interrogation of Petitioner No. 1 was warranted.

Court’s decision
The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional position of Article 32, recalling Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s description of it as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution and reiterated that the Court would not readily refuse to hear an Article 32 petition where violation of fundamental rights is prima facie shown. Applying this framework, the Court found sufficient basis to accept the petitioners’ grievance in the given circumstances.
A significant circumstance noted by the Court was that the allegation concerning mutation of forest land pertained to the year 2010, yet the FIR in that regard was registered only in 2025, after about fifteen years, a delay the Court found “intriguing,” though it consciously avoided deciding the correctness of the FIR registration at that stage to prevent prejudice. The Court further noted that when interim bail was granted on 17.12.2025, there was “not even a whisper” about FIR No. 20/2025 and FIR No. 458/2025 during submissions, and observed that these later developments were brought through the counter-affidavit filed much later on 19.01.2026.
On the issue of “non-cooperation,” the Court stated that cooperation in investigation cannot be equated with an accused making a confession to suit the prosecution’s convenience. It then recorded its satisfaction that successive FIR registration and subsequent remand orders appeared designed to keep Petitioner No. 1 in continuous custody despite the grant of bail, specifically noting that soon after interim bail, Petitioner No. 1 was remanded to custodial interrogation in FIR No. 458/2025 by Order dated 19.12.2025 and again remanded in FIR No. 20/2025, with seven days’ further remand granted on 20.12.2025.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed that Petitioner No. 1 be released forthwith on bail in FIR No. 20/2025 (24.11.2025) and FIR No. 458/2025 (26.11.2025). Since Petitioner No. 1 was not an accused in FIR No. 9/2025 (20.05.2025) and had already obtained anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court did not pass further orders on that FIR. For Petitioner No. 2, who had not been arrested, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken, subject to her cooperation with the investigation.
In the connected criminal appeal (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 20248/2025), the Court recorded the State’s submission that it had no objection to making interim bail absolute since the chargesheet had been filed on 22.12.2025 and consequently allowed the appeal, continuing bail on terms to be set by the jurisdictional court, including appearance dates and cooperation.

Conclusion
This Judgment is a reminder that the Supreme Court’s Article 32 jurisdiction remains available where the Court finds a prima facie case of fundamental-rights infringement, particularly involving personal liberty. On the record before it, the Court treated the pattern of successive FIRs and remands as an abuse of process aimed at neutralising bail and therefore granted immediate protective relief by ordering bail in the later FIRs and shielding Petitioner No. 2 from coercive action conditional on cooperation. For practitioners, the order underscores that “cooperation” with investigation cannot be demanded in the form of confession and that courts may intervene where criminal process appears to be deployed to ensure continued custody rather than legitimate investigation.

YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALIED SERVICES
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA: Legal Analysis 2026 by Adv Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below: