The Supreme Court of India criticised Jharkhand Police for filing successive FIRs to prolong custody despite bail granted earlier orders. A bench of Aravind Kumar and P. B. Varale ordered release, noting abuse of process.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently noted that the successive first information reports (FIRs) filed by the Jharkhand Police seemed to be a deliberate effort to keep an accused individual incarcerated, even after securing bail.
A Bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale ordered the immediate release of the accused, who had approached the Court through a writ petition.
The Bench stated,
“In the instant case, this Court is fully satisfied the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep petitioner No.1 within the custody.”
This case originated in May 2025 when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Ranchi filed FIR No. 9/2025 against the accused for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act concerning alleged irregularities.
While this investigation was ongoing, another FIR, No. 11/2025, was filed by the ACB in Hazaribagh on the same day. This second FIR was related to the alleged mutation of forest land in the names of the accused from 2010, purportedly in collusion with government officials.
The Court highlighted that although the mutation entry occurred in 2010 with approval from revenue authorities, no action was taken for 15 years.
The Bench remarked,
“It is very intriguing to note that the mutation entry having taken place in the year 2010 with the approval of hierarchy of Revenue Officials yet for fifteen long years, they did not pursue the matter and only in the year 2025, the said FIR has been registered,”
A writ petition challenging the arrest was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court in October 2025. The accused then turned to the Supreme Court, which instructed the High Court to expedite the consideration of his bail request. However, the High Court ultimately rejected his bail application on December 4, 2025.
Following this, the accused approached the Supreme Court again and was granted interim bail in relation to FIR No. 11/2025 on December 17, 2025. During this time, two additional FIRs, FIR No. 20/2025 (registered on November 24, 2025) and FIR No. 458/2025 (registered on November 26, 2025) were filed against him.
Shortly after receiving interim bail on December 17, the accused was subjected to custodial interrogation in FIR No. 458/2025 by a magistrate on December 19, followed by another remand for FIR No. 20/2025.
He subsequently returned to the Supreme Court for relief.
The Supreme Court expressed its astonishment that while bail was being discussed on December 17, the existence of the additional FIRs was not disclosed.
The Court stated,
“It is rather intriguing and aghast, we notice that while submissions were being made before this Court on 17.12.2025, there was not even a whisper with regard to FIR No. 20/2025 or FIR No. 458/2025,”
The Bench indicated that these actions displayed a pattern.
It said,
“These continued acts and conduct of the prosecution would clearly establish that the respondents have consciously ensured that petitioner No.1 is kept in custody.”
The Court dismissed the State’s argument that the accused had alternative remedies and should refrain from invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 32, citing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s description of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
It emphasized that it would not deny a petition under Article 32 when a prima facie violation of fundamental rights was evident.
The Court stated,
“The alleged non-cooperation of the petitioners with the investigation is to be considered with a pinch of salt… cooperation of the accused in the investigation does not necessarily mean and include that the accused would be rendering the confession to suit the convenience of the prosecution,”
Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused in FIR Nos. 20/2025 and 458/2025 and ordered his immediate release. Since he was no longer an accused in FIR No. 9/2025 and had already obtained anticipatory bail in that case, no further orders were issued regarding it.
Senior Advocates Basava Prabhu S Patil and R Basant represented the accused, while the State of Jharkhand was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Arunabh Choudhary.
Case Title: Binay Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Read Attachment: