Successive FIRs to Keep Accused in Custody After Bail Is Abuse of Process: Supreme Court Allows Article 32 Writ

The protection of personal liberty is one of the most important guarantees under the Constitution of India. When a person is granted bail by a court of law, that order must be respected and implemented in spirit and substance. However, what happens if the State repeatedly registers fresh FIRs against the same individual to ensure that he continues to remain in custody despite bail?

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that the successive registration of FIRs with the intention of keeping an accused in custody even after the grant of bail amounts to an abuse of the criminal process. The Court allowed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.

The case, titled Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., was decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Background of the Case

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 alleging that the State had adopted a strategy of registering successive FIRs to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 remained in jail, even after securing bail in earlier cases.

Allegations in the FIRs

The FIRs were registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Ranchi and Hazaribagh. The allegations broadly related to:

1. Irregularities in land mutation

2. Issues concerning excise policy

3. Alleged mutation of forest land dating back to 2010

4. Offences under the Indian Penal Code

5. Alleged violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Petitioner No. 1 was initially called for inquiry in one FIR. On the same day, another FIR was registered naming him as an accused. Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered on 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025.

The petitioners argued that this pattern was deliberate and designed to nullify the effect of bail orders.

What Is Article 32 and Why Is It Important?

Article 32 of the Constitution allows any person to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously described it as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.

In this case, the petitioners invoked Article 32, claiming that:

1. Their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 was being violated.

2. The State was misusing criminal law to defeat bail.

3. The repeated registration of FIRs was oppressive and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstances justified exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32.

The Legal Issue: Can Successive FIRs Be Used to Defeat Bail?

The core issue before the Court was:

Whether the State can register multiple FIRs in such a manner that an accused remains in custody despite being granted bail in earlier cases?

The petitioners contended that:

1. Each time bail was granted or arguments were being heard, another FIR was registered.

2. The object was not investigation but continued incarceration.

3. This amounted to harassment and abuse of process.

The State argued that:

1. There were alternative remedies available.

2. The allegations were serious and involved large-scale irregularities.

3. Custodial interrogation was necessary.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court carefully examined the sequence of events and made strong observations.

1. Delay in Registration of FIR

The Court noted that the mutation entry allegedly took place in 2010 and was approved by revenue officials. However, for fifteen long years, no action was taken.

Suddenly in 2025, an FIR was registered.

The Court found this timing suspicious, particularly when viewed in the context of bail proceedings.

2. Suppression of Material Facts

The Court observed that while submissions were being made before it on 17.12.2025, there was not even a whisper about two other FIRs that had already been registered.

This raised serious concerns about transparency and fairness in the State’s approach.

3. Successive FIRs as a Tool to Keep the Accused in Custody

The Court clearly stated that:

1. The subsequent FIRs prima facie appeared to ensure continued custody of Petitioner No. 1.

2. The conduct suggested a conscious effort to bypass the bail order.

3. Continued remand orders following bail showed deliberate action to keep him incarcerated.

The Court described this as an abuse of process.

4. Cooperation Does Not Mean Confession

The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary.

The Court clarified an important principle: Cooperation with investigation does not mean that the accused must confess or satisfy the prosecution’s convenience.

This observation reinforces that constitutional protections cannot be diluted in the name of investigation.

The Supreme Court’s Final Directions

After examining the material, the Court allowed the writ petition.

For Petitioner No. 1

The Court directed:

1. He must be released forthwith on bail in FIR No. 20/2025 and FIR No. 458/2025.

2. Since he was not an accused in FIR No. 9/2025 and had anticipatory bail, no further orders were needed.

For Petitioner No. 2

The Court directed:

1. No coercive steps shall be taken against her.

2. She must cooperate with the investigation.

The writ petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

The Connected Criminal Appeal

In a related appeal, the State expressed no objection to making the interim bail order absolute.

The Court directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail on terms imposed by the jurisdictional court, including:

1. Appearance before the trial court on all dates.

2. Cooperation with investigation.

The appeal was allowed.

Why This Judgment Is Constitutionally Significant

This ruling is important for several reasons:

1. Protection of Personal Liberty

Personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be defeated through procedural manipulation. The Court reaffirmed that:

1. Bail orders must be respected.

2. Investigative powers cannot be misused.

2. Limits on State Power

While the State has authority to investigate offences, that power is not unlimited. It cannot:

1. Register FIRs mechanically.

2. Use criminal law as a tool of harassment.

3. Circumvent judicial orders.

3. Strengthening Article 32 Jurisdiction

The Court demonstrated that Article 32 remains a powerful constitutional remedy when fundamental rights are under threat.

It also reinforces Dr. Ambedkar’s vision of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.

Understanding “Abuse of Process” in Criminal Law

Abuse of process refers to:

1. Using legal procedures for improper purposes.

2. Manipulating the justice system.

3. Acting in bad faith to harass or oppress.

In this case, the abuse was not merely procedural irregularity. It was systemic and strategic—designed to nullify bail.

Can Multiple FIRs Ever Be Valid?

It is important to clarify that multiple FIRs are not automatically illegal.

They may be valid when:

1. They relate to distinct and separate offences.

2. They arise from different transactions.

3. They involve different complainants and factual situations.

However, they become unconstitutional when:

1. They are filed in close succession.

2. They relate to the same set of facts.

3. Their clear purpose is to defeat bail.

Each case depends on its facts.

What This Means for Accused Persons

If you or someone you know faces repeated FIRs after bail:

1. Examine whether the FIRs arise from the same transaction.

2. Check the timing of registration.

3. Look at whether bail orders are being circumvented.

4. Consider approaching the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Legal advice from experienced criminal lawyers is crucial in such situations.

What This Means for Investigating Agencies

This judgment sends a clear message:

1. Investigations must be fair.

2. Criminal law must not be weaponised.

3. Bail orders must be respected.

Agencies must ensure transparency and constitutional compliance.

Role of Senior Advocates in the Case

The petitioners were represented by:

1. Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate

2. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Senior Advocate

The respondents were represented by:

1. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate

2. Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Senior Advocate

The presence of senior counsel highlights the seriousness and constitutional importance of the matter.

Broader Impact on Criminal Jurisprudence

This ruling strengthens key principles:

1. Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.

2. Liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedure.

3. Courts will intervene when executive action becomes oppressive.

It also discourages forum manipulation and tactical litigation strategies aimed at prolonging custody.

Legal Takeaways

Here are key lessons from the judgment:

1. Bail once granted cannot be neutralised through fresh FIRs without valid legal grounds.

2. Article 32 remains an effective constitutional safeguard.

3. Courts will scrutinize timing and intent behind successive FIRs.

4. Custodial interrogation must be justified, not assumed.

5. Abuse of criminal process can invite constitutional correction.

Conclusion

The judgment in Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. is a strong reaffirmation of constitutional values.

By holding that successive FIRs aimed at keeping an accused in custody constitute abuse of process, the Supreme Court protected:

1. Personal liberty

2. Judicial authority

3. Constitutional supremacy

This decision reinforces that the criminal justice system must operate within constitutional boundaries. Investigation is important, but liberty is paramount. When the balance tilts unfairly, constitutional courts will step in.

For citizens, lawyers, and law enforcement alike, this ruling serves as a reminder: the rule of law cannot be compromised by procedural strategies designed to defeat fundamental rights.