Recently, the Supreme Court intervened in a high-stakes case involving alleged misuse of criminal process, holding that successive FIRs and repeated custodial remands against an individual, despite grant of bail, amounted to a prima facie abuse of legal process under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted the imperative to protect personal liberty from arbitrary state action, observing that “cooperation with investigation does not mean that an accused must confess to suit the prosecution,” signaling strict judicial scrutiny against procedural harassment.
Brief Fact:
The dispute arose when state authorities filed successive criminal complaints against an individual accused of corruption and irregularities in land and policy matters. Despite courts granting bail, additional complaints and custodial remands were sought, prompting allegations that the authorities were deliberately trying to keep the petitioner in continuous custody. The petitioners approached the Apex Court under Article 32, asserting that such repeated actions violated their fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty, and fair treatment.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The petitioners argued that the State authorities were deliberately exploiting the criminal law framework by registering successive FIRs solely to frustrate bail orders and prolong custody. They contended that this pattern of repeated FIRs and remands was arbitrary, mala fide, and a misuse of the criminal process, infringing fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, particularly the right to personal liberty. The counsel emphasized that such actions undermined the rule of law and judicial authority, rendering protective bail orders ineffective.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State maintained that alternative remedies, including High Court intervention, were available, and thus the Supreme Court need not entertain the writ petition under Article 32. The authorities argued that the allegations related to serious irregularities under the Excise Policy and land mutation matters, necessitating thorough investigation. Custodial interrogation of Petitioner No.1 was justified, the State asserted, given the gravity of the offences alleged, and there was no intention to abuse the process.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the sequence and timing of FIRs, emphasizing the centrality of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. While refraining from assessing the merits of the FIRs themselves, the Court noted the unusually delayed registration of FIR initiated 15 years after the alleged forest land irregularity, and found the timing “intriguing,” particularly in light of bail proceedings. The Court observed that subsequent FIRs were filed and custodial remands sought even after bail had been granted, indicating a deliberate effort to keep Petitioner in detention.
Stressing the distinction between cooperating with an investigation and being compelled to confess, the Court remarked, “Cooperation with investigation does not mean that an accused must confess to suit the prosecution.” The bench underscored that the prosecution’s cumulative conduct reflected mala fide intent, with repeated FIRs and remands effectively neutralizing judicial bail orders. The Court further highlighted the responsibility of authorities to respect fundamental rights while conducting investigations, warning against arbitrary use of criminal process as a coercive tool.
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court allowed the petition, directing the release of the petitioner and prohibiting further custodial action against cooperating parties. The Court reaffirmed a clear legal principle, repeated and strategically timed complaints intended to undermine judicial orders constitute abuse of criminal process and violate the fundamental right to personal liberty."
Case Title: Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55/2026
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon'ble. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv.. R.Basant, Sr. Adv. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Adv. Aditya Dewan, Adv. Himangi Kapoor, Adv. Ramneet Kaur, Adv. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Sivanandh Lahiri, Adv. Raunak Arora, AOR. Samir Malik,
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Arunabh Choudhary, AOR. Pallavi Langar, Adv. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey,
Read Judgment@Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
