Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a batch of criminal writ petitions arising from multiple FIRs registered against a firm and its management across several States over alleged defalcation of funds collected from investors and depositors. The original writ petition was filed by the father of a partner and additional director and the friend of the managing director, but substitution by the accused was later allowed. Connected petitions were filed by persons in management and family members. No FIR was registered against two of the petitioners, as noted from records. The State of Telangana filed a counter affidavit resisting the clubbing of FIRs, pointing out that though the modus operandi was similar, each FIR involved distinct investors, unique transactions, and offences under different State enactments for protection of depositors. The FIRs were registered in Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan, with multiple FIRs only in Telangana and Maharashtra. Petitioners sought clubbing of all FIRs, including future FIRs, to a single police station where the first crime was registered, arguing that multiple FIRs arose from the same cause of action and investigation should be brought under one roof. The State resisted, contending that clubbing across States would be impractical because witnesses i.e. investors and depositors would have to travel, and individual transactions had unique ramifications. The Court found the prayer for future FIRs to be overambitious and outright illegal, as held in Aman Deep Singh Saran. It distinguished Amish Devgan, where a single objectionable statement telecast led to multiple FIRs, from the present case where each FIR pertained to different investors and distinct transactions. The Court referred to Amanat Ali, where consolidation was permitted only within Madhya Pradesh and rejected for other States. It also noticed Section 242 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, which allows joint trial for up to five offences of the same kind committed within twelve months. Consequently, the Court transferred FIR No. 215 of 2025 from Madhapur, Cyberabad to Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad within Telangana, and FIR No. 210 of 2025 from Wagle Estate, Thane City to Ambazari, Nagpur City within Maharashtra. Clubbing of the single FIRs in Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan was rejected. The Court directed that prosecution witnesses travelling from original police station limits to the transferee court must be paid travel and residence costs by the accused through the court. Considering that some petitioners were incarcerated for months and others had pending warrants, the Court ordered interim release on bail subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate and cooperation in investigation. Production warrants were not to be acted upon for six months, during which petitioners were required to appear before jurisdictional courts and seek regular bail, which was to be considered the same day and granted on appropriate conditions. The protection from coercive steps was limited to six months, and failure to cooperate or comply could lead to cancellation of bail. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Clubbing of Multiple FIRs - Distinct Transactions Across States - Constitution of India, Articles 32, 142; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162 - The Court considered whether FIRs registered in different States against the same firm and its management could be clubbed to one police station. It held that each FIR arose from complaints of different investors/depositors and distinct transactions, making cross-state consolidation impractical due to witness locations and unique facts. Held, prayer for clubbing of future FIRs was illegal, and only multiple FIRs within the same State were transferred to one police station; single FIRs in other States were not transferred (Paras 5-9, 12). B) Criminal Procedure - Joint Trial for Same Kind Offences - Charging Together - Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, Section 242 - The Court noted Section 242 BNSS enables an accused to be charged and tried at one trial for up to five offences of the same kind committed within twelve months. It found that this provision did not justify blanket consolidation of all FIRs across States. Held, any joint trial must comply with the statutory limit of five offences under Section 242 BNSS (Para 10). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction and Interim Bail - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India, Article 32 - Considering incarceration and pending warrants against some petitioners, the Court granted interim bail to those in custody and directed that production warrants not be acted upon for six months. Petitioners were required to appear before jurisdictional courts within six months for regular bail and to cooperate with investigation. Held, interim protection was temporary and conditional; failure to cooperate could lead to cancellation of bail (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether multiple FIRs registered in different States on similar allegations can be clubbed to one police station; whether future FIRs can be clubbed; whether petitioners are entitled to interim bail and protection from arrest
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the writ petitions. It transferred FIR No. 215 of 2025 registered at Madhapur, Cyberabad to Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad in Telangana, and FIR No. 210 of 2025 registered at Wagle Estate, Thane City to Ambazari, Nagpur City in Maharashtra. Clubbing of single FIRs in Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan was rejected. The prayer for clubbing future FIRs was held to be illegal. The Court directed that prosecution witnesses travelling from the original police station limits to the transferee court be paid travel and residence costs by the accused through the court. It granted interim bail to petitioners in custody with conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate and ordered that production warrants not be acted upon for six months. Petitioners were required to appear before jurisdictional courts within six months to seek regular bail, which was to be considered the same day and granted on appropriate conditions including cooperation with investigation. The protection from coercive steps was limited to six months, and failure to cooperate or comply could lead to cancellation of bail. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and pending applications were disposed of.
Law Points
- Multiple FIRs on distinct transactions cannot be clubbed across states
- prayer for future FIRs is illegal
- Section 242 BNSS permits joint trial for up to five same kind offences within 12 months
- interim bail granted with conditions
- witness travel costs to be paid by accused
- Article 142 power is limited
