Jail after bail? Supreme Court flags successive FIRs by Jharkhand Police to keep accused behind bars

The Supreme Court recently said that successive first information reports (FIRs) registered by the Jharkhand Police appeared to be a conscious attempt to keep an accused behind bars despite their getting bail [Binay Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors]. .A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale ordered the immediate release of the accused who had approached the Court through a writ petition. While doing so, the Bench noted,“In the instant case, this Court is fully satisfied the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure to keep petitioner No.1 within the custody,” the Bench said..The case had its origins in May 2025, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi registered FIR No 9/2025 against the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with alleged irregularities. While this investigation in that FIR was underway, another FIR No 11/2025 was registered by the ACB at Hazaribagh on the same day. This related to alleged mutation of forest land in the names of the accused persons in 2010, allegedly in connivance with government officials.The Court noted that the mutation entry was said to have taken place in 2010 with approval of revenue authorities, yet no action was taken for 15 years.“It is very intriguing to note that the 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 observed..Meanwhile, a writ petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the arrest was dismissed in October 2025. The accused then approached the Supreme Court. The apex court directed the High Court to decide his bail plea expeditiously. The High Court eventually dismissed the bail application on December 4, 2025.The accused then moved the Supreme Court again and was granted interim bail in FIR No 11/2025 on December 17, 2025.However, during this period, two more FIRs - FIR No 20/2025 (November 24, 2025) and FIR No 458/2025 (November 26, 2025) were registered against him.Soon after interim bail was granted by the Supreme Court on December 17, the accused was remanded to custodial interrogation in FIR No 458/2025 by a magistrate on December 19. Another remand followed in FIR No 20/2025.He then moved the Supreme Court again..The Supreme Court found it “rather intriguing" and was "aghast” that when bail was being argued before it on December 17, there was no disclosure about the subsequent FIRs.“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 Court said.The Bench said these acts showed a pattern.“These continued acts and conduct of the prosecution would clearly establish that the respondents have consciously ensure that petitioner No.1 is kept in custody."Rejecting the State’s argument that the accused had alternative remedies and should not invoke writ jurisdiction Article 32, the Court recalled Dr BR Ambedkar’s description of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.It said that it would not refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 where a prima facie violation of fundamental rights was shown.“The alleged non-cooperation of the petitioners with the investigation is to be considered with a pinch of salt…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 said..Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the accused in FIR Nos 20/2025 and 458/2025 and directed his release forthwith.Since he was no more an accused in FIR No 9/2025 and had already obtained anticipatory bail in that case, no further order was passed in that regard..Senior Advocates Basava Prabhu S Patil and R Basant along with advocates Aditya Dewan, Himangi Kapoor, Ramneet Kaur, Kumar Abhishek, Arijeet Shukla, Sivanandh Lahiri, Raunak Arora and Samir Malik appeared for the accused..The State of Jharkhand was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Arunabh Choudhary along with advocates Pallavi Langar, Pragya Baghel and Sujeet Kumar Chaubey..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.