State-wise clubbing of connected FIRs and continuation of bail in the principal FIR for merged proceedings

In appropriate cases involving multiple FIRs arising from the same broad transaction within the same State, the SC may use Article 142 to direct state-wise consolidation before the principal special court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court held that later FIRs in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh could be merged with the earliest FIR in each State, with subsequent FIRs treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC and supplementary charge-sheets permitted; any case where cognizance had already been taken was also to be transferred and merged. The West Bengal and Rajasthan matters were excluded and left to proceed independently, and the direction did not extend to PMLA proceedings. Existing bail in the principal FIR was held to continue for the clubbed cases until cancelled for supervening reasons.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether multiple FIRs arising in the same State could be clubbed and tried together state-wise; (ii) whether bail granted in the principal FIR would continue to operate in respect of the clubbed FIRs.

Issue (i): whether multiple FIRs arising in the same State could be clubbed and tried together state-wise.

Analysis: The petition invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 and the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for consolidation of several FIRs registered in different States. The Court held that FIRs within the same State, where they related to the same general allegations and were to be tried before the same special court under the applicable State enactment, could be directed to proceed together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It excluded from such clubbing the West Bengal case already investigated by the CBI and the Rajasthan case, which stood independently placed on its own facts and statutory setting. The subsequent FIRs in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh were directed to be merged with the earliest FIR in each State, and the subsequent FIRs were to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with liberty to file supplementary charge-sheets. If cognizance had already been taken in any subsequent FIR, those cases were also to stand transferred and merged with the principal case in the concerned State. The direction was confined to the general offences, the IPC offences and the relevant State special enactments, and did not extend to PMLA proceedings.

Conclusion: Clubbing of FIRs state-wise was directed for Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, while the West Bengal and Rajasthan matters were left to proceed independently.

Issue (ii): whether bail granted in the principal FIR would continue to operate in respect of the clubbed FIRs.

Analysis: The Court directed that where bail had already been granted in the principal FIR, the benefit would continue in respect of the merged or clubbed matters until cancelled by the competent court for supervening reasons, including breach of bail conditions. Where no bail had been granted in the principal FIR, the accused was given liberty to seek bail before the competent jurisdictional court on its own merits.

Conclusion: Existing bail in the principal FIR was ordered to enure to the clubbed cases, and fresh bail could be sought where no such bail existed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was substantially allowed by permitting state-wise consolidation of connected FIRs and by protecting the continuing effect of bail in the principal case, with the remaining cases to proceed in accordance with law before the competent special courts.

Ratio Decidendi: In appropriate cases involving multiple FIRs within the same State and arising from the same broad transaction, the Court may invoke Article 142 to order state-wise clubbing and trial before the principal special court to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, while preserving the operation of bail granted in the principal FIR for the merged cases.

---