Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026
It clarifies that alternative remedies do not automatically bar constitutional jurisdiction where fundamental rights are at stake.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
16 February 2026
Judges
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
- An FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi on 20 May 2025 under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions.
-
While Petitioner No.1 was being questioned in that FIR, another FIR was registered by ACB Hazaribagh, relating to alleged forest land mutation in 2010.
-
Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered in 2025.
-
The petitioners alleged that these successive FIRs were deliberately registered to defeat bail orders and ensure continued custody.
-
Even after the Supreme Court granted bail on 17.12.2025, the petitioner was remanded in another FIR on 19.12.2025.
-
Further remand for seven days was granted on 20.12.2025 in another FIR.
-
Petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging violation of fundamental rights and abuse of criminal process.
-
The State argued that an alternative remedy of bail was available and hence Article 32 should not be invoked.
Issues
-
Whether successive registration of FIRs to keep an accused in custody despite grant of bail amounts to abuse of process of law?
-
Whether the availability of an alternative remedy of bail bars the Supreme Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution?
-
Whether repeated remand orders after grant of bail violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court held that successive FIRs were registered intentionally to keep the petitioner in custody.
-
Observed that the prosecution’s conduct clearly established a conscious effort to defeat bail orders.
-
Rejected the contention that availability of alternative bail remedy bars Article 32 jurisdiction.
-
Reiterated that Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
-
Emphasized that where prima facie violation of fundamental rights is shown, the Court will not refuse relief under Article 32.
-
Directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court.
-
Ordered cooperation with investigation and mandatory appearance before the trial court unless exempted.
Held
-
Successive FIRs to defeat bail amount to abuse of process of law.
-
Article 32 can be invoked when fundamental rights are prima facie violated.
-
Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to conditions.
-
Appeal allowed.
Analysis
-
The judgment strengthens protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
-
It prevents misuse of criminal law machinery to circumvent judicial bail orders.
-
Reaffirms the expansive scope of Article 32 as a fundamental right itself.
-
Sends a strong message against forum manipulation and procedural harassment by prosecution authorities.
-
Ensures that constitutional courts remain vigilant against executive overreach.
-
Clarifies that alternative remedies do not automatically bar constitutional jurisdiction where fundamental rights are at stake.