Successive FIRs To Defeat Bail? Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release, Slams Jharkhand Police Tactics

Terming the conduct of the prosecution troubling and indicative of a pattern, the Court ordered the accused’s immediate release.

The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

“In the instant case, this Court is fully satisfied that the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep petitioner No.1 within custody,” the Bench held, adding that the conduct of the prosecution clearly showed a deliberate attempt to defeat the grant of bail.

The controversy traces back to May 2025, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, registered FIR No. 9/2025 against the accused under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging certain irregularities. While the investigation in this case was ongoing, another FIR No. 11/2025 was registered by the ACB at Hazaribagh on the same day.

The second FIR related to an alleged mutation of forest land in favour of the accused in 2010, purportedly carried out in connivance with government officials. The Supreme Court found it “very intriguing” that the alleged mutation had taken place with the approval of revenue authorities in 2010, yet no action was initiated for nearly 15 years.

“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,” the bench noted.

The accused initially challenged his arrest before the Jharkhand High Court, but his plea was dismissed in October 2025. He then approached the Supreme Court, which directed the High Court to decide his bail application expeditiously. The High Court, however, dismissed the bail plea on December 4, 2025.

On December 17, 2025, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to the accused in FIR No. 11/2025. But even as arguments on bail were underway, two more FIRs; FIR No. 20/2025 (registered on November 24, 2025) and FIR No. 458/2025 (registered on November 26, 2025), had already been lodged against him.

Soon after interim bail was granted, the accused was remanded to custodial interrogation in FIR No. 458/2025 on December 19, followed by another remand in FIR No. 20/2025. He was thus effectively prevented from being released.

The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure at this sequence of events. “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 observed.

According to the Court, these “continued acts and conduct of the prosecution” clearly established a pattern designed to ensure that the accused remained in custody.

Rejecting the State’s objection that the accused had alternative remedies and should not have invoked Article 32, the Bench recalled Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s description of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. It held that where a prima facie violation of fundamental rights is demonstrated, the Supreme Court would not hesitate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

The Court also cautioned against equating cooperation in investigation with extracting confessions. “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,” it said.

Allowing the petition, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused in FIR Nos. 20/2025 and 458/2025 and directed his release forthwith. Since he was no longer an accused in FIR No. 9/2025 and had already secured anticipatory bail in that case, no further orders were required.