2026 (3) TMI 502 - SC - Indian Laws

Abuse of process in successive criminal registrations justified bail and protective restraint on coercive action pending investigation.

Abuse of process in successive FIR registrations after interim bail was found where chronology of registrations, remands and long prior inaction indicated ... Entitlement to be released on bail - illegal arrest - mala fide - Misuse of criminal process by successive FIRs to thwart bail - non-cooperation of the petitioners with the investigation - exercise of Article 32 jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights - restraining coercive action where arrest not yet effected subject to cooperation - anticipatory bail - offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 7(c), 12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). Misuse of criminal process by successive FIRs to thwart bail - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the subsequent FIRs registered after this Court granted interim bail prima facie appeared to have been deployed to ensure that Petitioner No.1 remained in custody. The Court noted the timing of filing and of the State's counter-affidavit, observed remands granted after bail was ordered, and treated repeated registration and custodial remands as cumulative conduct indicative of an attempt to frustrate the bail order. Applying Article 32 to vindicate the petitioners' fundamental rights, the Court concluded that Petitioner No.1 was entitled to immediate release on bail in the two FIRs registered on 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025, while leaving untouched the anticipatory bail previously granted in FIR No.9/2025. [Paras 11, 12, 13] Petitioner No.1 is released on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025; no order is passed in relation to anticipatory bail in FIR No.9/2025. Restraining coercive action where arrest not yet effected subject to cooperation - HELD THAT:- The Court refrained from permitting any coercive action against Petitioner No.2 while noting that she had not been arrested. The protection is conditional: no coercive steps shall be taken provided Petitioner No.2 cooperates with the investigation. This restraint is protective in nature and linked to the Court's determination on abuse of process and protection of fundamental rights. [Paras 13] No coercive steps shall be taken against Petitioner No.2, subject to her cooperation with the investigation. Final Conclusion: The writ petition under Article 32 is allowed: Petitioner No.1 is directed to be released on bail in the FIRs registered on 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025; no coercive action shall be taken against Petitioner No.2 provided she cooperates with the investigation, and the anticipatory bail in FIR No.9/2025 is left undisturbed. Issues: (i) Whether successive registration of FIRs (FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025) constituted a mala fide abuse of the criminal process to keep petitioner No.1 in custody and whether petitioner No.1 is entitled to be released on bail in those FIRs; (ii) Whether coercive action should be restrained against petitioner No.2 during the pendency of the petition.Issue (i): Whether successive FIRs were mala fide and whether petitioner No.1 is entitled to bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025.Analysis: The petition record shows that petitioner No.1 had been called for inquiry in an earlier FIR and that two subsequent FIRs were registered after this Court had granted interim bail; the timing and sequence of registrations and remands indicate a pattern aimed at prolonging custody. Applicable constitutional provisions invoked include Article 32 read with Article 142 and the petition raised alleged violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21. Criminal law framework includes offences alleged under specified sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The registrational chronology, remand orders following grant of bail by this Court, and the absence of prior prosecution activity over many years were treated as material in assessing whether the process was being abused to frustrate the effect of bail.Conclusion: Petitioner No.1 is entitled to be released on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025. This conclusion is in favour of the appellant.Issue (ii): Whether coercive action should be restrained against petitioner No.2 during the pendency of the petition.Analysis: Petitioner No.2 had not been arrested at the time of decision. Given the findings on the pattern of successive FIRs and the need to protect personal liberty while investigation proceeds, a protective restraint on coercive steps was considered appropriate, subject to cooperation with the investigation.Conclusion: No coercive steps shall be taken against petitioner No.2 subject to her cooperation with the investigation. This conclusion is in favour of the appellant.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed; petitioner No.1 is directed to be released on bail in the specified FIRs and coercive action against petitioner No.2 is restrained on the stated condition, thereby providing protective relief to the petitioners while preserving investigative rights of the State.Ratio Decidendi: Where successive criminal proceedings are instituted in sequence after judicial bail to defeat the effect of that bail and to perpetuate custody without independent supporting circumstances, such registrations constitute abuse of process and justify grant of bail and protective restraint on coercive action.