The Supreme Court has held that bail principles governing heinous crimes also apply to serious economic offences. It observed that financial crimes affect not only property but also the economic well-being and quality of life of citizens.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a bail order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had granted bail to an accused described as a habitual financial offender.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court granted bail mainly on parity. However, it failed to examine the accused’s specific role, criminal antecedents, and repeated involvement in similar offences.
Bail Law Not Limited to Violent Crimes
The Bench relied on Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 16 SCC 508, and Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781.
Although those cases involved heinous and violent offences, the Court clarified that their underlying principles apply equally to financial fraud.
The Court observed:
“Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. 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 while dealing with the alleged offenders’ pleas for grant of bail.”
Background
The appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail in a case involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation.
The complainant, Rakesh Mittal, alleged that he supplied foodgrains worth over ₹11.52 crore to the accused and his associates. He received only ₹5.02 crore. The prosecution claimed that the remaining amount was siphoned off using forged documents, fake addresses, and multiple identities.
The FIR invoked Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 IPC. During investigation, authorities added Section 409 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the accused used several aliases. He possessed forged Aadhaar and PAN cards. He absconded for nearly 20 months. Police arrested him only after announcing a reward.
The Sessions Court rejected his bail plea. It noted suppression of criminal antecedents and misleading conduct. Despite this, the High Court granted bail. It relied on parity, filing of the charge sheet, Magistrate-triable nature of the offence, and time spent in custody.
The complainant then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Justice K. Vinod Chandran authored the judgment.
The Court held that ignoring criminal antecedents, abscondence, fake identities, and likelihood of repeat offences renders a bail order perverse.
The Bench observed:
“In the case on hand, the investigation against respondent No.1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender… Further, the fact that respondent No.1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again… demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society… Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, respondent No.1 chose to abscond…”
The Court also cautioned against mechanical reliance on parity:
“…the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle… Given the fact that respondent No.1 has not turned over a new leaf… letting him loose on society would only pose a risk and hazard to others.”
Result
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s bail order.
Case Title:
Rakesh Mittal versus Ajay Pal Gupta, alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr.
