Introduction:
In a landmark assertion of constitutional liberty and judicial vigilance, the Supreme Court of India has held that the successive registration of FIRs with the object of keeping an accused in continuous custody, despite the grant of bail, constitutes a clear abuse of the criminal process and warrants immediate intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution. The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while allowing a writ petition filed directly before the Supreme Court alleging violation of fundamental rights. The case arose from a disturbing sequence of events in which multiple FIRs were registered against the same accused in quick succession, allegedly to frustrate judicial orders granting bail and to ensure that the accused continued to “languish behind bars.” Emphasising that Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as famously described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Court rejected the argument that the availability of bail as an alternative remedy barred the maintainability of a writ petition. The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed through procedural manipulation and that constitutional courts will intervene when the criminal law is used as a tool of oppression rather than justice.
Factual Background:
The controversy had its genesis in an FIR registered on May 20, 2025, by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, against Petitioner No. 1 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the petitioner was being questioned and proceeded against in connection with this first FIR, another FIR was registered by the ACB, Hazaribagh, pertaining to an alleged mutation of forest land dating back to the year 2010—nearly fifteen years prior to the registration of the FIR. This second FIR, according to the petitioners, was conspicuously timed and lacked any reasonable explanation for the extraordinary delay.
The matter did not end there. In the course of 2025, two additional FIRs were registered against Petitioner No. 1. The cumulative effect of these actions was that even when bail was granted in one case, the petitioner was immediately arrested or remanded in connection with another FIR. Notably, after bail was granted by the Supreme Court on December 17, 2025, the petitioner was again remanded to custodial interrogation by orders passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate on December 19 and December 20, 2025, in different FIRs. This pattern, the petitioners alleged, revealed a calculated and concerted attempt by the State to defeat judicial orders and ensure the petitioner’s continued incarceration.
Feeling that the ordinary remedies under criminal law had been rendered illusory by this cycle of successive FIRs and remands, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, asserting a grave violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
On behalf of the petitioners, it was forcefully argued that the State had weaponised the criminal justice system to keep Petitioner No. 1 in perpetual custody, notwithstanding repeated grants of bail. The petitioners contended that the successive FIRs were not independent or bona fide investigations but were strategically registered to circumvent judicial scrutiny and to nullify the effect of bail orders.
It was submitted that the registration of an FIR in 2025 for an alleged act of mutation said to have taken place in 2010, after a delay of fifteen years, itself raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution. The petitioners argued that the timing of this FIR—coinciding with custodial proceedings in the first case—could not be brushed aside as a coincidence. When viewed alongside the subsequent FIRs and remand orders, it revealed a pattern of abuse rather than legitimate law enforcement.
The petitioners further argued that Article 32 of the Constitution confers an independent and guaranteed right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Where the State’s actions result in a continuing violation of personal liberty, the existence of alternative remedies such as bail applications cannot bar the Court’s jurisdiction. The repeated cycle of arrest, bail, re-arrest, and remand, according to the petitioners, rendered the right to bail meaningless and justified the Court’s immediate intervention.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The State of Jharkhand and other respondents, represented by senior counsel, resisted the writ petition primarily on the ground of maintainability. It was argued that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, the remedy of seeking bail in each of the FIRs. On this basis, it was contended that the Supreme Court ought not to entertain a petition under Article 32.
The respondents maintained that each FIR related to a distinct offence and that the registration of multiple FIRs, by itself, did not amount to illegality. According to the State, the investigation was being carried out in accordance with law, and custodial interrogation was necessary for uncovering the truth behind serious allegations involving corruption and misuse of public resources.
It was further argued that judicial interference at the stage of investigation would impede the State’s legitimate power to investigate cognisable offences and that the grant or refusal of bail should be left to the jurisdictional courts under the criminal law framework.
Issues for Consideration:
The principal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the successive registration of FIRs in the given factual context amounted to an abuse of the criminal process aimed at defeating bail orders, and whether the availability of an alternative remedy of bail could preclude the Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution in cases of alleged violation of fundamental rights.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning:
The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the central importance of Article 32 in the constitutional scheme. Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Court recalled that Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, designed to provide a guaranteed remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights. The Bench emphasised that the existence of similar powers in the High Courts under Article 226 does not dilute or curtail the Supreme Court’s duty to intervene where a prima facie violation of fundamental rights is established.
Rejecting the argument that the availability of bail as an alternative remedy barred the writ petition, the Court observed that it has, on numerous occasions, refused to adopt a rigid or technical approach when personal liberty is at stake. Where the facts disclose a pattern of State action that effectively nullifies judicial orders and keeps an individual in custody through successive procedural manoeuvres, constitutional intervention becomes not only permissible but necessary.
Turning to the facts of the case, the Court found considerable force in the petitioners’ contention that the successive registration of FIRs was intended to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 remained in custody. The Bench noted with concern that immediately after bail was granted by the Supreme Court on December 17, 2025, the petitioner was remanded to custodial interrogation in another FIR by orders dated December 19 and December 20, 2025. This sequence of events, in the Court’s view, was not accidental.
The Court observed that the respondents’ “continued acts and conduct” clearly established a conscious effort to keep the petitioner behind bars. The registration of FIRs after long delays, the timing of arrests and remands, and the manner in which custodial interrogation was sought even after the grant of bail collectively pointed to an abuse of process. The Court held that such conduct strikes at the very root of the rule of law and undermines the sanctity of judicial orders.
Court’s Judgment:
Having reached the conclusion that the successive FIRs were registered to defeat bail and perpetuate custody, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court may impose, including conditions requiring appearance before the trial court on all dates of hearing and cooperation with the investigation.
The Court made it clear that while the State is entitled to investigate offences in accordance with law, it cannot do so in a manner that subverts constitutional guarantees and judicial orders. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the petitioner’s liberty was restored subject to lawful conditions.