Supreme Court: In a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, alleging repeatedly invoking and deploying the criminal process against the petitioners by way of successive registration of FIRs and custodial remands, particularly after grant of bail, is said to be arbitrary, mala fide, and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21, a Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., concluded that the successive registration of FIRs was solely to keep the petitioner 1 in custody. The Court granted bail to the petitioner 1 and directed that no coercive steps be taken against petitioner 2, subject to cooperation with investigation.
In the instant matter, petitioner 1 was initially summoned by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with FIR No. 9/2025 dated 20-05-2025 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7(c), 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act). On the same day, another FIR No. 11/2025 was registered by ACB Hazaribagh relating to alleged illegal mutation of forest land in 2010 against the petitioners 1 and 2 with alleged connivance of Government officials.
A writ petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court challenging petitioners’ arrest was dismissed on 17-10-2025. Thereafter a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court. During pendency of proceedings, two additional FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 20/2025 dated 24-11-2025 and FIR No. 458/2025 dated 26-11-2025, were registered.
The Supreme Court, vide order dated 17-12-2025, granted interim bail in SLP. The counter-affidavit by the State was filed later on 19-01-2026. Despite grant of interim bail by the Supreme Court, petitioner 1 was remanded to custodial interrogation in FIR No. 458/2025 and thereafter further remanded in FIR No. 20/2025.
Aggrieved by the repeated harassment and deployment of the criminal process, the petitioners filed the present writ petition and sought for declaration that repeated invocation of criminal process was “arbitrary, mala fide, and unconstitutional, amounting to a gross abuse of process”; grant of bail in FIR Nos. 20/2025 and 458/2025, direction restraining any coercive action against petitioner 2 and direction restraining registration of further FIRs without leave of the Court.
The Court recalled Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s observation that Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, thereby empowering citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. It reiterated that the Court will not “readily refuse to hear a petition under Article 32” where violation of fundamental rights is prima facie established.
The Court found it very intriguing that the mutation had taken place in 2010 but the FIR was registered only in 2025. The Court observed that when interim bail was granted on 17-12-2025, there was not even a whisper regarding FIR Nos. 20/2025 or 458/2025.
The Court noted that the subsequent or succeeding FIRs registered against the petitioners “prima facie seems to be to ensure that petitioner No.1 is kept in continued custody despite the order of bail granted by this Court and to trunk it to the said order.”
The Court further emphasised that “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.”
The Court held that the petitioner 1 is entitled to be released on bail in FIR No. 20/2025 and FIR No. 458/2025. In respect of petitioner 2, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken, subject to cooperation with investigation. In relation to FIR No. 11/2025, the Court directed enlargement on bail subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court, including appearance on all dates of hearing and cooperation with investigation.
[Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2026 with Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2026, Decided on 10-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. R.Basant, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv.; Ms. Himangi Kapoor, Adv.; Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.; Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv.; Mr. Sivanandh Lahiri, Adv.; Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv. and Samir Malik, AOR, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR; Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. and Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
