Successive FIRs to keep accused in jail after bail amount to abuse of law: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that the repeated registration of first information reports to keep an accused in custody despite the grant of bail constitutes an abuse of the criminal process and calls for intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The judgment came on a writ petition filed under Article 32, in which the petitioners alleged that the State had invoked successive criminal proceedings to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 continued to “languish behind the bars” even after securing bail orders. They contended that the pattern of FIRs showed a deliberate effort to defeat judicial directions and prolong custody.
The dispute originated with an FIR lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi, on May 20, 2025, under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the petitioner was being questioned in connection with that case, another FIR was registered by the ACB in Hazaribagh concerning the alleged mutation of forest land in 2010, a case initiated after a gap of 15 years. Two more FIRs followed later in 2025.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the petition and ordered the release of the accused. The court rejected the submission of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi that the availability of a remedy of bail barred the maintainability of a writ petition. It noted that Article 32 remains available when a prima facie violation of fundamental rights is shown, recalling Dr B R Ambedkar’s description of the provision as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
The bench recorded that after bail was granted on December 17, 2025, the petitioner was again remanded to custodial interrogation on December 19, 2025, in FIR No. 458 of 2025, followed by a further remand of seven days on December 20, 2025, in FIR No. 20 of 2025. These steps, the court said, demonstrated a conscious attempt to keep the petitioner in custody.
Allowing the appeal, the court directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail on conditions to be fixed by the jurisdictional court, including appearing on all hearing dates and cooperating with the investigation.
