Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order granting bail to a habitual financial offender accused of cheating a foodgrain supplier of over ₹6 crore through forged identity documents and fictitious addresses. The Court held that the principles governing bail in serious offences apply with equal force to economic crimes, as such offences directly erode the economic well-being and quality of life of citizens. Finding that the High Court had mechanically extended the parity principle without weighing the accused's persistent criminal conduct, multiple aliases, prior bail violations, and active role as the alleged mastermind, the Court directed that the bail order could not be sustained on facts or in law.

Also Read: Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals In Telugu Actress Death Case

The appeal arose from a challenge to the grant of bail to an accused in a case registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code in relation to alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complainant alleged that he had supplied foodgrains to four accused persons and was paid only part of the total amount due, with several cheques issued by the accused being dishonoured. It was further alleged that forged documents, including Aadhaar cards with fabricated addresses and variations in names, were prepared to facilitate the fraud.

The accused was arrested after remaining untraceable for over a year. The Sessions Court rejected his bail application, noting suppression of information regarding other FIRs. The High Court subsequently granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused and on the premise that the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The State contended that Section 409 IPC had been added after investigation, that multiple aliases and forged identity documents were recovered from the accused, and that he had prior criminal antecedents in different jurisdictions.

While examining the High Court’s reasoning, the Bench recorded that the High Court proceeded on the premise that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, but “the High Court overlooked the fact that the offences now alleged against respondent No.1 include offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 467 IPC also.” The Court further noted, “Significantly, the punishment for offences under these provisions can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term up to ten years.”

On the scope of interference with bail orders, the Court stated, “Even in cases of cancellation of bail, the power to do so is not just limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances as the Court has the inherent power and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances.” It recorded that one relevant ground is “where the past criminal record and the conduct of the accused are completely ignored while granting bail.”

The Court noted, “Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being.” It further observed, “In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen… the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders’ pleas for grant of bail.”

On the factual matrix, the Court recorded, “The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father’s name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them.” It further stated, “The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration.”

The Bench also recorded, “In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case.”

Also Read: Unproven Extra-Marital Affair Accusation Amounts To Mental Cruelty, Justifies Wife's Separation And Cannot Be Treated As Desertion: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Husband's Divorce Appeal

The Court held, “The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granting bail to respondent No.1, therefore, cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. The said order is accordingly set aside.  The State shall, however, ensure that the trial in the case is expedited by taking all necessary measures. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Manish Goswami, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rongon Choudhary, Advocate; Mr. Gaurav Shukla, Advocate; Mr. Deshmukh Adith Satish, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ankit Dhawan, AOR; Mr. Rupraj Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Mohit Miglani, Advocate; Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR

Case Title: Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 161

Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran