Court’s decision
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by Rakesh Mittal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to the prime accused in a ₹6.5 crore cheating and forgery case. The Court held that the High Court had “blindly extended the parity principle” without considering the accused’s criminal antecedents, use of multiple aliases, prior absconding, and non-cooperation in earlier cases. Observing that liberty cannot be absolute when an individual poses a danger to society’s economic well-being, the Court restored custody and directed expeditious trial.
Facts
The appellant, a foodgrain supplier, lodged FIR No. 0568/2023 alleging that he was cheated of ₹6.5 crore. Though ₹5.02 crore was paid, the remaining ₹6.5 crore was unpaid out of a total liability exceeding ₹11.52 crore. Cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured.
The FIR invoked Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, and later Section 409 IPC was added during investigation. The accused allegedly operated under 8–10 aliases and possessed multiple forged Aadhaar cards and a PAN card with varying names and even different father’s names.
He absconded for over 20 months and was arrested only after a reward of ₹51,000 was announced. The Sessions Court rejected bail citing suppression of prior FIRs. However, the High Court granted bail on grounds of parity, filing of charge sheet, and the assumption that the case was triable by a Magistrate.
Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
- Whether the High Court erred in granting bail solely on parity without considering criminal antecedents.
- Whether the assumption that the offence was triable by a Magistrate was legally sustainable.
- Scope of appellate interference with a bail order not amounting to cancellation but challenge to grant.
- Whether economic offences affecting societal well-being require stricter scrutiny in bail matters.
Appellant’s arguments
The appellant contended that the accused was a habitual offender with multiple FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. He had earlier secured bail in a 2017 Delhi case but absconded, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants.
It was argued that forged identities and aliases demonstrated systematic criminality. Grant of bail on parity ignored his distinct and aggravated role as mastermind. The High Court failed to consider seriousness of offences under Sections 409 and 467 IPC, punishable up to life imprisonment.
Respondents’ arguments
The accused argued that he was entitled to parity as co-accused were granted bail or anticipatory bail. He asserted that only two FIRs were pending and disputed allegations of multiple identities.
He relied on settled principles emphasising liberty and limited scope of interference with bail orders, contending that the High Court exercised discretion judiciously.
Analysis of the law
The Court clarified that this was not a routine cancellation of bail due to supervening circumstances but a direct challenge to an unjustified bail order.
Relying on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that bail can be set aside where relevant factors are ignored.
In Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that parity cannot override criminal history or likelihood of repetition of offences.
The Court emphasised that liberty is fundamental but not absolute. Society’s collective interest and economic security must be weighed.
It further noted that offences under Sections 409 and 467 IPC carry punishment up to life imprisonment. Under Section 29 CrPC, Magistrates cannot impose such sentences, and cases may be committed to Sessions Court under Sections 209 or 323 CrPC. The High Court’s assumption that the case was triable by Magistrate was premature.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied upon:
- Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 – Bail may be cancelled where relevant factors are ignored.
- Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508 & (2016) 15 SCC 422 – Parity cannot eclipse antecedents; liberty balanced against societal interest.
- Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 781 – Criminal antecedents must be considered.
The Court extended these principles to economic offences, observing that financial fraud undermines societal stability.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the accused’s use of multiple aliases, fake IDs, and altered father’s names established deliberate evasion and deception.
He remained a fugitive for 20 months despite raids and public notices. Even after earlier bail in a 2017 case, he absconded again and furnished fictitious surety details.
The High Court failed to consider his role as alleged mastermind and his repeated criminal conduct. Granting bail solely on parity ignored distinctive factors and societal risk.
The Court observed that in economic offences, victims’ economic well-being is part of the right to life and liberty. Allowing habitual economic offenders back into society poses serious risk.
Accordingly, the bail order was held unsustainable in law and on facts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order dated 12 November 2025. The accused remains in custody. The State was directed to expedite trial proceedings.
Implications
This ruling significantly strengthens jurisprudence on bail in economic offences. It clarifies that parity is not an automatic ground and that criminal antecedents, absconding behaviour, and identity manipulation are critical factors.
The judgment underscores that economic crimes impact societal stability and warrant careful judicial scrutiny. Courts must balance individual liberty with collective economic security.
The decision also reiterates that appellate courts can set aside unjustified bail orders even absent supervening circumstances.
Case Law References
- Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349
- Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508
- Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 15 SCC 422
- Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 781
FAQs
1. Can bail granted on parity be set aside?
Yes. If the accused has distinct criminal antecedents or aggravated circumstances ignored by the High Court, parity alone is insufficient.
2. Do economic offences affect bail considerations?
Yes. Courts consider societal and economic impact, especially in large-scale fraud and cheating cases.
3. Can Supreme Court interfere with bail orders without new circumstances?
Yes. If the bail order is unjustified, perverse, or ignores relevant factors, it can be set aside.