The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be granted on the basis of parity alone when the accused is a habitual offender with a documented history of identity fraud, absconding, and multiple criminal cases. The judgment underscores that societal safety and the integrity of the judicial process outweigh mechanical application of the doctrine of parity among co-accused.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rakesh Mittal, alleged that the respondent, Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary, conspired with others to defraud him of ₹6.5 crores through forged documents, dishonoured cheques, and multiple aliases. The respondent allegedly used at least eight different names and fabricated Aadhaar and PAN cards with altered father’s names to evade detection. The FIR was registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 IPC, later amended to include Section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple judicial stages:
- 29.12.2023: FIR No. 0568 registered at P.S. Risiya, Bahraich
- 2017 - 2025: Respondent had three prior FIRs in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, including one where he secured bail but absconded
- 08.08.2025: Respondent arrested after 20 months of evasion, following a ₹51,000 reward
- 29.08.2025: Sessions Judge rejected bail, citing suppression of prior cases and fake identities
- 12.11.2025: Allahabad High Court granted bail, relying on parity with co-accused and magistrate-triable nature of offences
- 24.11.2025: Supreme Court stayed the bail order pending appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant sought cancellation of the bail order granted by the High Court, arguing that the respondent’s criminal history, identity manipulation, and risk of reoffending rendered the bail order legally unsustainable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the doctrine of parity can override the criminal antecedents, identity fraud, and conduct of an accused when granting bail, particularly where the offences involve Section 409 IPC and Section 467 IPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue that bail cannot be granted when the accused is a habitual offender with a pattern of absconding and identity deception. He emphasized that the High Court ignored the respondent’s eight aliases, fake documents, and prior non-cooperation with justice, including a non-bailable warrant issued against him in 2025 for failing to appear in a prior case.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that he was entitled to parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, and that the offences were triable by a Magistrate under Section 29 CrPC. He claimed that discrepancies in his father’s name were not intentional and that only two FIRs existed against him, dismissing the State’s claims of multiple cases as unfounded.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous examination of the respondent’s conduct and the legal framework governing bail. It held that the High Court erred in treating parity as a standalone ground for bail without evaluating the accused’s individual conduct.
"The High Court had totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused and what had weighed with the High Court was only the doctrine of parity."
The Court distinguished Neeru Yadav and Sudha Singh, noting that even in non-heinous cases, the risk to societal economic order must be weighed. The respondent’s use of forged documents, multiple aliases, and deliberate concealment of prior cases demonstrated a pattern of predatory conduct. The Court emphasized that Section 409 IPC and Section 467 IPC carry punishments up to life imprisonment, making the case ineligible for automatic classification as magistrate-triable.
The Court further held that Section 209 CrPC and Section 323 CrPC empower Magistrates to commit cases to Sessions Court if the nature of the offence warrants it, rendering the High Court’s assumption premature. The Court also affirmed that bail orders may be set aside not only for supervening circumstances but also when they are founded on irrelevant considerations or ignore critical factors like criminal history.
The Court concluded that the respondent’s conduct - absconding for 20 months, using fake identities, and reoffending after prior bail - established him as a career criminal whose release would endanger public trust and economic security.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court. The Court held that parity cannot override criminal antecedents and identity fraud in bail decisions, and that Section 409 IPC and Section 467 IPC render the case unsuitable for automatic bail. The respondent remains in custody pending trial, with the State directed to expedite proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Criminal Antecedents Trump Parity
- Practitioners must now argue that parity in bail is inapplicable when one accused has a documented history of absconding, identity fraud, or prior non-cooperation
- Courts must conduct individualized assessments, not mechanical comparisons among co-accused
- Bail applications must include full disclosure of all prior cases, even if pending or withdrawn
Identity Fraud Elevates Risk Assessment
- Use of multiple aliases and forged documents constitutes evidence of mens rea and habitual criminality, not mere clerical error
- Such conduct justifies denial of bail even in non-violent economic offences
- Courts should treat fabricated IDs as aggravating factors under Section 467 IPC and Section 409 IPC
Magistrate-Triable Assumption Is Premature
- Accused cannot claim bail eligibility based on presumed magistrate-triability if Section 409 IPC or Section 467 IPC are invoked
- Magistrates retain power under Section 323 CrPC to commit cases to Sessions Court during trial
- Lawyers must challenge bail orders that rely on incorrect classification of offences
