E-Paper
Supreme Court grants bail to Ranchi bizman; raps Jharkhand agencies over multiple FIRs
Singh, a businessman with interests in multiple car dealerships, and his wife, Singhdha Singh, are co-accused in the liquor fraud case being probed by the ACB, along with incarcerated senior IAS officer Vinay Choubey. The couple, among others, has also been named as accused in two other cases related to mutation of forest land in Hazaribagh and a case of fraud registered with Jagannathpur police station in Ranchi.
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Ranchi businessman Binay Singh, a co-accused in three cases, including the Jharkhand liquor fraud, underlining that two “succeeding FIRs” filed by the Jharkhand Police and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) were just to ensure that he is “kept in continued custody despite the order of interim bail granted by the apex court and to trunk it to the said order”.
Singh, a businessman with interests in multiple car dealerships, and his wife, Singhdha Singh, are co-accused in the liquor fraud case being probed by the ACB, along with incarcerated senior IAS officer Vinay Choubey. The couple, among others, has also been named as accused in two other cases related to mutation of forest land in Hazaribagh and a case of fraud registered with Jagannathpur police station in Ranchi.
Besides filing a bail application, Singh had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking a restraining order against any coercive action by the state against his wife, Singhdha Singh. The apex court had granted interim bail to Singh in the liquor fraud case on December 17, 2025.
On Thursday, the division bench of justices Arvind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale allowed regular bail to Singh in the matters, besides directing no coercive action against Snighdha Singh.
In its order uploaded on the same day, the bench observed that “it is rather intriguing and aghast that while submissions were being made before them on December 17, 2025, there was not even a whisper about FIR No. 20/2025 or FIR No. 458/2025” against the accused.
“The apex court had granted interim bail to Singh on December 17, 2025, in the liquor scam case filed by the ACB (FIR No. 9/2025). However, two separate FIRs, namely FIR No. 20/2025 by the ACB and FIR No. 458/2025 by the Jharkhand Police, were registered on November 24, 2025, and November 26, 2025, respectively. While FIR No. 20/2025 is related to the mutation of forest land, FIR No. 458/2025 relates to a case of fraud,” an advocate close to the developments said.
“Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 – State, though would draw the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the State to buttress his argument that the said FIRs had been brought to the notice of this Court, it is to be noticed that the said counter-affidavit was filed on 19.01.2026 and, as such, the subsequent or succeeding FIRs registered against the petitioners prima facie seem to be to ensure that petitioner No. 1 (Binay Singh) is kept in continued custody despite the order of bail granted by this Court and to trunk it to the said order,” the bench said.
“In the instant case, this Court is fully satisfied that the successive registration of FIRs was to ensure that petitioner No. 1 (Binay Singh) remains in custody, and we are also fortified by the fact that on grant of bail by this Court on 17.12.2025, petitioner No. 1 has been remanded to custodial interrogation by order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in FIR No. 458/2025, and again further remand was granted for seven days, as against the prayer of fourteen days, by the order dated 20.12.2025 in FIR No. 20/2025 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. These continued acts and conduct of the prosecution clearly establish that the respondents have consciously ensured that petitioner No. 1 is kept in custody.”
Opposing the bail petition, senior counsel Rohatgi argued that preliminary inquiries revealed that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (Binay Singh and Snighdha Singh) had purchased forest land and got mutation done in connivance with government officials, and, given the large-scale illegalities, custodial interrogation of Binay Singh would be warranted.
“And as such, he sought dismissal of the writ petition,” the above-cited advocate said.
“The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the respondent authorities (the state government), after initially calling upon petitioner Binay Singh to appear for inquiry and failing in their attempt to extract a confession to suit their convenience, started filing one FIR after another to ensure that, despite bail being granted not only by the trial court but also by this Court, it was not given effect, or in other words, that petitioner No. 1 would continue to languish behind bars,” the advocate added.
