Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filed against the order of Patna High Court, by which the High Court declined to club all the FIRs registered against the petitioner-a real estate developer and the Company in which he is one of the Directors, the division bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. held that clubbing of FIRs arising from the same transaction is legally permissible to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to safeguard the larger interest of the victims.
The Court directed that all 81 FIRs registered against the petitioner be clubbed into a single case, and further held that all subsequent FIRs, whether already registered or to be registered in the future, pertaining to the same subject matter shall be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
In addition, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on temporary bail for a period of six months, subject to conditions laid down in the order, to enable him to take steps toward settling the claims of affected home buyers.
Background
The company named “Agrani Homes” was engaged in the business of real estate development. It undertook the construction of residential apartments, commercial buildings, and related projects.
A total of 81 FIRs had been registered against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the total liability imposed on him and the company in connection with these FIRs amounted to approximately Rs. 13,94,00,357/-. However, this figure was strongly disputed by the opposing side.
The first FIR was registered on 11-01-2018 for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). This FIR had since culminated in a criminal case, which was pending before the Court of ACJM-IX, Patna, Sadar Patna, in the State of Bihar. The petitioner had been in custody since 14-10-2022, and as of the present, he had been granted bail in 10 cases.
The High Court, vide order dated 02-08-2023 passed in Writ Petition, had directed the clubbing of the investigation in all cases registered with the Economic Offences Unit (‘the EOU’). However, the High Court had declined the request for clubbing of the FIRs. In the circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that there was no doubt that the petitioner had incurred substantial debt and, in the process, had also caused hardship to various home buyers. Taking a practical view of the matter, the Court considered it appropriate to prioritize the interests of the home buyers.
Accordingly, the Court expressed its inclination to grant the petitioner one opportunity to work out the modalities for settling the various claims of the home buyers, including compliance with the decrees passed against him by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘RERA’).
The Court observed that keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period would not serve any meaningful purpose, particularly in regard to safeguarding the interests of the home buyers. In view of the above circumstances, the Court held that the first step to be taken was to direct the clubbing of all 81 FIRs/criminal cases registered against the petitioner.
The Court accordingly directed that the first FIR registered against the petitioner on 11-01-2018 at the Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, Bihar, shall be treated as the main FIR. All other FIRs were to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. This direction was issued in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P., (2023) 14 SCC 805.
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed two undertakings before it. One undertaking had been submitted by the petitioner, and the second undertaking had been filed by his son. The Court further observed that, on the date of hearing, the son had filed an affidavit providing details regarding the properties registered in the name of the petitioner and various associated companies. The affidavit, along with its annexures, was ordered to be taken on record.
The Court also noted that the list annexed to the affidavit contained details of the properties owned by the petitioner and the companies, as well as information about various development agreements entered with third parties.
In such circumstances, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on temporary bail for a period of six months to enable him to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,94,00,357/- with the Registry of the Court and also to provide him an opportunity to settle the claims of various home buyers.
The Court ordered that the petitioner be released on temporary bail for six months upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned subject to the following conditions:
-
The petitioner was directed to surrender his passport, if not already done, with the Registry of this Court within a period of eight days from the date of the order. It was submitted by counsel that the passport of the petitioner was in possession of the RERA authorities. If that was the case, the RERA authorities were directed to hand over the passport to the Registry of this Court.
-
The petitioner was directed to mark his presence at the Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, Bihar, once every fortnight, specifically on Sundays.
-
The petitioner was restrained from transferring or creating any third-party rights or interests in any of the immovable properties standing in his name or in the name of the companies, without prior permission of the Court.
-
The Court made it explicitly clear that the deposit of Rs. 9,94,00,357/- shall not be construed by the petitioner as full and final settlement of all dues and claims. This amount was ultimately to be distributed among the home buyers.
The Court observed that, upon the expiry of six months, if the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount referred to above, the Court may proceed to pass further appropriate orders, including the cancellation or termination of the temporary bail granted.
It was further clarified that the above direction was without prejudice to the rights of RERA to execute the decree in accordance with law.
The Court directed that, as soon as the petitioner furnished the bail along with one solvent surety of the like amount, as mentioned earlier, he should be released on temporary bail forthwith, subject to the conditions previously laid down.
The Court further clarified that, insofar as the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) was concerned, it was at liberty to proceed in its own manner, strictly in accordance with law. The matter was directed to be listed before the same Bench on 24-02-2026, at the top of the Board, along with any applications for intervention, subject to curing of defects, if any.
[Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728, decided on 12-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varun Singh, Adv., Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR
Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mohammad Atif Ahmed, Adv., Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv., Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv., 1s LP(Crl.) No.4073/2025
For Respondent(s): Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR, Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. S.D.Sanjay, A.S.G., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Diyam Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Adv., Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. Punit Kumar, Adv., Ms. Silki Trehan, Adv., Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv., Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
