LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 161Decided 17 Feb 2026
Crl.A. No.-000957-000957 - 2026
Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

The complainant, a foodgrain supplier, alleged he was cheated of over Rs. 6.5 crore by the respondent and others, who used forged Aadhaar and PAN cards under multiple aliases and fabricated names to dupe him. The respondent, arrested after absconding for over a year and a half, was denied bail by the Sessions Court but later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on grounds of parity with co-accused. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's bail order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, holding that the High Court had wrongly assumed the case was triable only by a Magistrate, overlooking that some charges (including under Sections 409 and 467 IPC) carry punishment up to life imprisonment. The Court found the respondent was a habitual offender with multiple FIRs, at least eight aliases, and forged identity documents, and that he had previously absconded after being granted bail in an earlier case. It held that the High Court had mechanically applied the "parity" principle with co-accused without considering the respondent's distinct criminal history and conduct, and reaffirmed that courts can set aside a bail order (not just cancel bail) where relevant factors were ignored or the order is otherwise unjustified or perverse.

Lesson Learnt

A grant of bail can be challenged and set aside if the court ignored the accused's criminal antecedents or granted bail merely by analogy with co-accused ("parity") without examining the individual's own conduct and record; liberty is valuable but not absolute, especially against habitual offenders who pose a risk to society.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case