The Supreme Court of India has set aside a bail order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, observing that the High Court erred in “blindly extending the parity principle” to an accused with a history of criminal antecedents.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, Rakesh Mittal, and directed that the respondent-accused, Ajay Pal Gupta (alias Sonu Chaudhary), remain incarcerated. The Court emphasized that while individual liberty is of paramount value, a person cannot be permitted to become a “nuisance to the collective or a terror to the society.”
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the order dated November 12, 2025, passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had granted bail to the respondent primarily on the grounds that his co-accused had been released and that the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The Apex Court overturned this, noting the accused’s conduct of using multiple aliases, absconding for over 20 months, and his involvement in previous criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 0568, registered on December 29, 2023, at Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR invoked Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468, 471, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complainant alleged that he supplied foodgrains worth ₹11,52,38,156 to the accused persons but was paid only ₹5,02,57,000. The cheques issued for the balance amount were dishonoured. The complainant further alleged that the accused conspired to prepare forged documents, including Aadhaar cards with false addresses, to cheat him.
The respondent-accused was arrested on August 8, 2025, after absconding for one and a half years. His bail application was initially rejected by the Sessions Court, Bahraich, on August 29, 2025, which noted that he had suppressed information regarding other FIRs registered against him. However, the High Court subsequently granted him bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons.
Arguments Before the Court
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a counter-affidavit opposing the bail. The State submitted that:
- The investigation revealed the ingredients of Section 409 IPC (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent).
- The accused operated under 8 to 10 different aliases, including Gautam Agrawal, Shubham Gupta, and Shaurya Dudulani.
- At the time of his arrest, multiple forged Aadhaar cards and a PAN card were recovered, where even his father’s name was altered from ‘Sobharam’ to ‘Bhagwan Das Agarwal’.
- The accused was a fugitive for over 20 months and was arrested only after a reward of ₹51,000 was declared.
- He had a history of criminal antecedents, including FIR No. 229 of 2017 in Delhi, where he had secured bail but subsequently stopped appearing before the Trial Court.
The Respondent-Accused contended that his name and his father’s name were correctly recorded in certain documents and that he had no control over how the complainant recorded his details in the FIR. He claimed parity with co-accused Devender Pal Singh and Uma Shankar Mishra, who had been granted bail.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s reasoning and found it unsustainable on several grounds:
1. Misapplication of Jurisdiction regarding Trial The High Court had reasoned that the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The Supreme Court termed this assumption “premature.” The Bench pointed out that the charges included Section 409 and Section 467 of the IPC, which carry sentences extending to imprisonment for life or ten years. The Court noted:
“It would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions under Section 209 CrPC or Section 323 CrPC.”
2. Consideration of Antecedents and Conduct The Apex Court observed that the High Court failed to consider the accused’s past criminal record and conduct. Citing precedents such as Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and Sudha Singh v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that bail orders can be set aside if relevant factors like criminal antecedents are ignored.
The Court observed:
“The investigation against respondent No.1… clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity… clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them.”
3. Economic Offences and Societal Risk Addressing the nature of the crime, the Court stated that while liberty is important, it extends to the economic well-being of society members. The Court remarked:
“In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life’s pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed.”
4. Rejection of Parity The Court held that the High Court “blindly extended the parity principle” without considering the distinctive features of the respondent’s case. The Court noted that the respondent had not “turned over a new leaf” despite being granted bail in a 2017 case and instead continued to engage in criminal activities.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated November 12, 2025, passed by the Allahabad High Court.
- The Court noted that since the respondent had not been released from prison due to an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on November 24, 2025, the impugned order would not be given effect to.
- The State was directed to ensure that the trial is expedited.
Case Title: Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. [To be assigned] of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025)
