Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Rakesh Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025)
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – This is not a case of cancellation of bail but a challenge to validity of an order granting bail – Even in cases of cancellation of bail, power to do so is not just limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances as Court has inherent power and discretion to cancel bail of accused even in absence of supervening circumstances – One of grounds is where past criminal record and conduct of accused are completely ignored while granting bail – Value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to quality of their life, including their economic well-being – Investigation against respondent No.1, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender – Number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and deliberate changes of identity, including his father’s name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them – High Court ought not to have blindly extended parity principle to him without considering particular and distinctive features of his individual case – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 15, 19, 20, 22 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is complainant in FIR, registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of P.S. Risiya, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh. He is aggrieved by grant of bail to an accused therein., viz., Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary, respondent No.1, vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9871 of 2025 by a Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by 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. State shall, however, ensure that the trial in the case is expedited by taking all necessary measures.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the value of life and liberty extends beyond the individual's physical person to include the quality of life and economic well-being of society as a whole (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the challenge to the bail order was not merely about canceling bail but about its validity. It highlighted that even in cases of bail cancellation, courts have inherent power and discretion to revoke bail, even without supervening circumstances, especially if the accused's past conduct and criminal record are overlooked [Para 15][Para 16].
The Court noted that the offences against the respondent included serious charges that could entail imprisonment for life or up to ten years, and some offences carry sentences exceeding three years. Therefore, such cases are not necessarily triable solely by a Magistrate, and the assumption that they are is premature [Para 12][Para 13].
The Court emphasized that the powers of Magistrates are limited regarding offences that carry higher penalties, and cases involving such offences can be committed to a Court of Sessions if necessary [Para 14].
The Court highlighted that the High Court erred in blindly applying the parity principle without considering the specific and distinctive circumstances of the respondent’s case, especially given his history of habitual offending, false identities, and repeated breaches of bail conditions [Para 20][Para 22].
The Court found that the respondent’s past conduct, criminal antecedents, and ongoing activities demonstrated that he remains a threat to society, and thus, granting bail was unjustified. It stressed that individual cases must be assessed on their merits, especially considering the risk posed by habitual offenders [Para 20][Para 22].
The Court set aside the order granting bail to the respondent, emphasizing the need for the trial to be expedited to ensure justice and societal safety [Para 24].
Overall, the Court underscored that the liberty of individuals must be balanced against societal interests, particularly in cases involving habitual offenders and serious offences, and that bail decisions must be made with careful consideration of all relevant factors [Para 19][Para 22].
Would you like a summary or specific legal advice based on this case?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusations against respondent no.1 and case background. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. investigation details and respondent's history. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. bail considerations and offences triable by magistrate. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. judicial discretion in granting bail. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. impact of past conduct on bail decisions. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. assessing habitual offender status. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. inadmissibility of the bail order granted. (Para 22) |
| 8. final judgment on the appeal. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the complainant in FIR No. 0568 dated 29.12.2023, registered under Sections 406 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18601[For short, ‘IPC’], on the file of P.S. Risiya, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh. He is aggrieved by the grant of bail to an accused therein., viz., Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary, respondent No.1, vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9871 of 2025 by a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
3. The case of the complainant was that he had supplied foodgrains to the four named accused in the FIR, including respondent No.1, but he was paid only Rs.5,02,57,000/- out of the total sum due and payable to him, i.e., Rs.11,52,38,156/-. He claimed that cheques were issued but when those cheques were presented, they were dishonoured for want of funds. He further claimed that his inquiries had revealed that the accused conspired with each other, prepared forged documents with false and fabricated addresses, including Aadhaar Cards, and had cheated him. Documents were filed in proof of respondent No.1 showing his own name and his father’s name differently on separate occasions.
4. When notice was ordered in this matter on 24.11.2025, this Court was informed that respondent No. 1 had not yet been released from prison pursuant to the impugned bail order. Noting the same, this Court directed that, if that be so, the impugned order should not be given effect to. In consequence, respondent No.1 still remains incarcerated.
5. We may note that respondent No.1, being accused No.1 in the FIR, was arrested only on 08.08.2025 after absconding for over one and a half years. The learned Sessions Judge, Bahraich, rejected his plea for grant of bail, vide order dated 29.08.2025 in Bail Application No. 2512 of 2025. Therein, the learned Sessions Judge, apart from noting various other aspects, found that respondent No.1 had deliberately made a false statement before the Court by suppressing the fact that there were three other FIRs registered against him in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.
6. Respondent No.1 then approached the High Court by way of the subject application on 03.09.2025. By the impugned order, the learned Judge noted his plea that he was entitled to parity, as his co-accused, viz., Devender Pal Singh was granted bail on 07.11.2025 and another co-accused, Uma Shankar Mishra, had been granted anticipatory bail even earlier on 18.08.2025. The learned Judge held that, in the light of the co-accused’s bail orders; the period that respondent No.1 had remained in prison; the fact that the chargesheet had been filed; and as the offence was triable by a Magistrate, respondent No.1 was entitled to grant of bail, subject to conditions. This order is the cause for grievance presently.
7. Notably, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 644 of 2024 filed by respondent No.1 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking quashing of the subject FIR No. 0568 of 2023 was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2024.
8. The State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent No.2 herein, filed a counter affidavit. Therein, it stated that after the registration of the FIR on 29.12.2023, after investigation and upon discovery of the ingredients of criminal breach of trust, Section 409 IPC was also added. Notices were stated to have been issued to all the four accused but respondent No.1 and his co-accused, Vijay Pal Gupta, could not be f
Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to quality of their life, including their economic well-b....
Bail – Court should be circumspect in granting bail in economic offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, an....
The court emphasized that bail should be denied if the accused's conduct poses a risk to the judicial process, particularly in cases involving serious offences and repeated criminal activity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail should consider the gravity of the offense and the involvement of the accused, and custodial interrogation can have a signif....
Cancellation of bail requires compelling evidence of misconduct or supervening circumstances affecting fairness of trial; mere subsequent offenses do not suffice.
(1) While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due ....
(1) Habitual offenders having criminal proclivity should not be granted bail by Court.(2) Bail – Court must appreciate and consider nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of convicti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
