2025 (8) TMI 1340 - SC - Indian Laws

Petitioner and company granted six-month interim bail after 81 FIRs clubbed; must deposit Rs9,94,00,357 to enable settlement

ALOK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

ALOK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether multiple FIRs/criminal cases arising out of similar facts against a director/developer should be clubbed and treated as part of a single main FIR for purposes of investigation and trial. 2. Whether subsequent FIRs (future or already registered) relating to delivery of property to home buyers can be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC and what legal effect such treatment carries. 3. Whether temporary bail and conditional release is appropriate where the accused is in custody, there are multiple FIRs and large alleged liabilities, and where the accused offers monetary deposits, undertakings and restrictions on disposal of assets. 4. What conditions (quantum and form of deposit, undertakings, bail bonds, passport surrender, police attendance, restraint on alienation of properties) are legally permissible and appropriate to protect the interests of victims (home buyers) while granting temporary release. 5. The extent to which court-ordered deposits/undertakings affect rights of other enforcement agencies (e.g., RERA, ED) and whether such directions are without prejudice to those rights. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Clubbing of multiple FIRs/criminal cases into a single main FIR Legal framework: The CrPC confers powers to regulate investigation and trial procedures; principles of convenience, avoidance of multiplicity, fair investigation, and prevention of abuse guide clubbing decisions. Precedent Treatment: The Court expressly follows the decision in Satinder Singh Bhasin (referenced by the Court) as authority for treating related FIRs as capable of being clubbed with a main FIR and treating other FIRs as statements under Section 161 CrPC. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the FIRs arise from the same factual matrix - a builder/developer allegedly collecting payments and not delivering flats - and that keeping the accused in custody indefinitely serves neither the investigational nor victims' interests. For practical administration and to protect home buyers, the Court directed all 81 FIRs to be clubbed with the first FIR as the main FIR. The reasoning emphasises efficiency of investigation, consolidation to avoid multiplicity, and enabling a structured settlement process. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where multiple FIRs spring from the same transaction/transactional scheme and investigation overlaps, the court may order clubbing and designate a main FIR to streamline investigation and proceedings. Obiter - Practical considerations about jail detention not serving victims' interests serve as rationale but are ancillary. Conclusions: Clubbing ordered; first FIR dated 11.01.2018 treated as main FIR; consolidation intended to facilitate investigation and settlement of claims of home buyers. Issue 2 - Treating other FIRs (including future FIRs concerning delivery of property) as statements under Section 161 CrPC Legal framework: Section 161 CrPC concerns recording of statements by police during investigation; statements under Section 161 are not substantive evidence at trial unless recorded under Section 164 or used in cross-examination subject to statutory rules. Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on and follows the approach in the cited authority (Satinder Singh Bhasin) permitting treatment of related FIRs as statements under Section 161 to centralise and focus investigation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treats subsidiary FIRs and any future FIRs on delivery issues as akin to investigatory statements to avoid parallel prosecutions and to ensure a unified investigation under the main FIR. This is aimed at procedural consolidation while preserving investigatory scope. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Courts can, in appropriate cases, direct that related FIRs be treated as statements under Section 161 for the purpose of a consolidated investigation. Obiter - The mechanics and evidentiary implications of such treatment (e.g., admissibility at trial) are not exhaustively addressed and remain subject to trial-stage rules. Conclusions: Direction issued that other FIRs, including future related FIRs, will be treated as Section 161 statements vis-à-vis the main FIR to streamline investigation. Issue 3 - Grant of temporary bail conditioned on substantial deposit and undertakings where accused faces multiple FIRs and alleged large liabilities Legal framework: Principles governing bail include consideration of nature of offence, accused's custodial period, likelihood of tampering/absconding, and interests of victims; courts may impose conditions including monetary deposits, undertakings and monitoring to balance liberty and victim protection. Precedent Treatment: The Court's approach aligns with established principles allowing conditional bail subject to quantifiable security and undertakings aimed at restitution or safeguarding victim claims; the decision follows prior authority permitting monetary deposits as part of bail conditions in economic-offence contexts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court took a pragmatic view prioritising home buyers' interests - recognizing large alleged liability and prior partial payments - and provided a conditional, time-bound temporary bail to enable the accused to arrange and deposit the balance amount for distribution among victims. The Court rejected acceptance of immovable property as security in favour of a cash deposit with Registry invested in a nationalised bank to ensure liquidity and availability. Undertakings by the accused and family members to settle the balance within six months were accepted as part of the conditional regime. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Temporary bail can be granted subject to: (a) fixed deposit of substantial monetary amount with Court Registry; (b) personal undertakings to settle outstanding liabilities within a time-frame; (c) bail bonds and sureties; and (d) strict conditions (passport surrender, periodic police appearance, restraint on alienation). Obiter - Statements regarding keeping practical view and hope that accused will use indulgence for victims' benefit are exhortatory. Conclusions: Temporary bail for six months granted conditional on deposit of Rs.9,94,00,357 with Registry, furnishing bail bonds and surety, and compliance with other conditions; deposit not to be construed as full and final settlement and remains subject to distribution to home buyers. Issue 4 - Specific conditions imposed: quantum/form of deposit, undertakings, bail bonds, passport surrender, police attendance, restraint on alienation Legal framework: Courts may prescribe conditions ancillary to bail to secure attendance and protect third-party rights; they may direct preservation of assets and impose monitoring conditions to prevent circumvention of judicial orders. Precedent Treatment: The Court's directions on passport surrender, periodic reporting, restraint on transfer without court permission, and approval of deposits with Registry mirror well-established supervisory measures used in bail orders involving economic offences and risk of dissipation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court required cash deposit (not immovable property) to ensure readily realizable security and immediate protection for victims; bail bond and surety were fixed to safeguard attendance; passport surrender and fortnightly police station appearance reduce absconding risk; prohibition on transfer without prior permission preserves asset pool for victims. Undertakings by the accused's relatives were accepted to bind family members to obligations if accused defaults. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Conditions enumerated (cash deposit as short-term FDR with auto-renewal, bail bonds and surety, passport surrender, fortnightly police attendance, restraint on transfer without prior court permission) are appropriate safeguards when granting temporary bail in multi-FIR economic-offence contexts. Obiter - Preference against accepting immovable property as security is contextual, based on liquidity concerns, and may not be universal. Conclusions: Conditions imposed are legally sustainable and intended to balance accused's liberty with protection of home buyers' interests; deposit to be invested in nationalised bank FDR; undertakings recorded and will be enforced if defaults occur. Issue 5 - Interaction with RERA and ED and the effect of court directions on other enforcement rights Legal framework: Courts must avoid encroaching on statutory powers of other authorities; judicial orders affecting property or enforcement must ordinarily be without prejudice to concurrent enforcement measures unless specifically barred. Precedent Treatment: The Court explicitly preserved the rights of RERA to execute decrees and of ED to proceed in accordance with law, demonstrating adherence to the principle that bail/clubbing directions should not stymie independent statutory actions. Interpretation and reasoning: By clarifying that deposit and undertakings do not affect RERA's execution rights and that ED may proceed independently, the Court ensured its orders are limited to criminal process management and protective measures for victims, not an override of statutory enforcement regimes. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Court directions granting temporary relief are to be construed without prejudice to rights of statutory authorities; such agencies may continue or resume their processes. Obiter - The Court's hope that accused will settle victims' claims does not curtail statutory enforcement. Conclusions: Directions are expressly subject to RERA and ED rights; deposit/undertakings do not preclude statutory execution or investigation by other agencies.