-
by sayum
01 April 2026 10:38 AM
“Article 32 Is the Heart and Soul of the Constitution” — In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional protections against misuse of criminal law, the Supreme Court of India held that successive registration of FIRs with the apparent object of nullifying bail orders amounts to abuse of process and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the writ petition under Article 32 and directed that Petitioner No.1 be released forthwith on bail in two subsequent FIRs. The Court also confirmed interim bail granted earlier in a connected criminal appeal and protected Petitioner No.2 from coercive action, subject to cooperation.
The judgment is a significant constitutional intervention safeguarding personal liberty where the criminal process is allegedly weaponised to ensure continued custody.
A Chain of FIRs and Custody
The controversy began when Petitioner No.1 was called for inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi in FIR No.9/2025 dated 20.05.2025 under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
On the same day, FIR No.11/2025 was registered by ACB Hazaribagh relating to alleged irregularities in mutation of forest land dating back to 2010. The petitioner was arrested and remanded.
Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered — FIR No.20/2025 on 24.11.2025 and FIR No.458/2025 on 26.11.2025.
When bail was denied by the Jharkhand High Court in FIR No.11/2025, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. On 17.12.2025, the Supreme Court granted interim bail in that case.
However, immediately thereafter, custodial remand was sought and granted in the newly registered FIRs, resulting in continued incarceration.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that successive FIRs were registered to defeat bail orders and keep Petitioner No.1 behind bars.
Article 32: Supreme Court Reasserts Its Constitutional Duty
At the outset, the Bench invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s description of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
The Court observed:
“Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is deemed to be ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution as it empowers any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.”
Rejecting the State’s objection that alternative remedies of bail before the High Court were available, the Bench reiterated that where a prima facie violation of fundamental rights is established, the Supreme Court will not refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32.
The Court made it clear that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exceptional circumstances involving abuse of criminal process.
Successive FIRs and Bail: A Prima Facie Abuse
The Bench carefully examined the sequence of events. While granting interim bail on 17.12.2025, the Court noted that there was “not even a whisper” about FIR No.20/2025 or FIR No.458/2025 during arguments.
The State attempted to rely on a counter-affidavit disclosing these FIRs, but the Court noted that it was filed only on 19.01.2026 — after interim bail had been granted.
The Court concluded:
“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 was further “aghast” to note that immediately after the Supreme Court’s interim bail order, the petitioner was remanded to custodial interrogation in the subsequent FIRs.
“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.”
The Court held that such conduct prima facie amounted to abuse of criminal process and a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Cooperation Does Not Mean Confession
One of the State’s primary arguments was that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation and custodial interrogation was necessary.
The Supreme Court dealt with this contention in emphatic terms:
“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.”
This observation is significant. The Court clarified that “cooperation” cannot be equated with self-incrimination or confession, reinforcing constitutional safeguards under Article 20(3) and Article 21.
Bail Granted in Subsequent FIRs
Taking a cumulative view of the circumstances, the Court directed that Petitioner No.1 be released forthwith on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025.
As regards FIR No.9/2025, since the petitioner had already been granted anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional court, no further orders were passed.
Petitioner No.2, who had not been arrested, was granted protection from coercive action, subject to cooperation with the investigation.
The Writ Petition under Article 32 was accordingly allowed, and Rule was made absolute.
Criminal Appeal: Interim Bail Made Absolute
In Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.20248/2025), the Court also confirmed interim bail granted on 17.12.2025 in FIR No.11/2025.
Notably, Senior Counsel for the State fairly submitted that there was no objection to making the interim order absolute, especially as the chargesheet had already been filed on 22.12.2025.
Recording this submission, the Court directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail on terms to be imposed by the jurisdictional court, including appearance on all hearing dates and cooperation with the investigation.
A Strong Constitutional Message
This ruling sends a clear constitutional signal — the criminal justice system cannot be manipulated to neutralise judicial orders granting bail.
The judgment underscores three critical principles:
First, Article 32 remains a robust and immediate remedy when personal liberty is threatened by abuse of process.
Second, successive FIRs registered in close proximity to bail orders, without proper disclosure, may invite judicial scrutiny for mala fides.
Third, cooperation with investigation does not mean capitulation to prosecutorial expectations.
By stepping in to protect liberty in the face of alleged procedural overreach, the Supreme Court has once again affirmed that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed at the altar of investigative strategy.
Date of Decision: 10.02.2026
