The Supreme Court has set aside a bail order granted to an accused allegedly involved in a ₹6.5 crore cheating and forgery case. The Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail merely on the ground of parity with co-accused while ignoring the accused’s criminal history and conduct.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has observed that the High Court wrongly applied the principle of parity without examining the distinct role and criminal history of the accused. It emphasised that parity cannot override individual circumstances, especially when the accused is alleged to be the “principal offender” and mastermind.
The case arose out of FIR registered at Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409, 419, 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), and 506.
The complainant, Rakesh Mittal, alleged that he supplied foodgrains to four accused persons but received only ₹5.02 crore out of the total ₹11.52 crore due. Cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. He further alleged that forged documents and fake addresses, including fabricated Aadhaar cards, were used to cheat him.
The investigation later revealed alleged cross-jurisdictional operations and financial loss of approximately ₹6.5 crore.
According to the State’s affidavit, the accused, Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary, allegedly operated under multiple aliases, including Ajay Pal Gupta, Sonu Chaudhary, Gautam Agarwal, Shubham Gupta, Shivam Agarwal, Kamla Kant Tiwari, Shaurya Dudulani, and Sonu Seth.
Police claimed that forged Aadhaar and PAN cards were recovered from his possession, showing different names and even different fathers’ names. The accused was arrested on August 8, 2025, after allegedly absconding for over 20 months. A reward of ₹51,000 was reportedly announced for his capture.
The State further informed the Court that at least three other FIRs were registered against him in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. In one earlier case registered in 2017 in Delhi, he was granted bail but allegedly failed to appear during trial, leading to issuance of a non-bailable warrant.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) had granted bail on November 12, 2025, primarily on the grounds that co-accused had been granted bail, the charge sheet had been filed, the accused had spent some time in custody, and the offences were stated to be triable by a Magistrate.
The complainant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
The High Court failed to consider that charges under Sections 409 and 467 IPC carry punishment extending up to life imprisonment or ten years. Therefore, the assumption that the case was triable by a Magistrate was premature.
The Supreme Court observed that the accused had multiple FIRs against him and had previously absconded after securing bail. His alleged use of multiple aliases and forged identity documents indicated a pattern of deceit.
The Bench noted that granting bail without considering such antecedents amounted to ignoring relevant factors.
While reiterating that liberty is a fundamental value, the Court observed that it is not absolute. In economic offences involving large-scale cheating, courts must weigh the potential risk to society.
The judgment stressed that economic offences affecting innocent victims’ hard-earned money are serious in nature and must be viewed with caution when considering bail.
Holding that the High Court’s order was unsustainable “either on facts or in law,” the Supreme Court set aside the November 12, 2025 bail order.
However, the Court directed the State to ensure that the trial is expedited.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Rakesh Mittal Versus Ajay Pal Gupta
Citation: JURISHOUR-03-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025
Date: 17/02/2026
