Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant against the bail granted to respondent No.1 by the Allahabad High Court -- The Court found that the High Court had erred in granting bail without proper consideration of the serious nature of the economic offence, the accused's conduct as a fugitive, and his criminal antecedents -- The offence involved cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust amounting to ₹6.5 crores -- Respondent No.1 had remained absconding for over 20 months and was operating under multiple aliases with forged Aadhaar cards and PAN cards -- The Court noted that the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically when there are distinguishing factors between co-accused -- The bail order was set aside and respondent No.1 was directed to surrender before the Trial Court
Headnote
The Supreme Court set aside the bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court to respondent No.1 -- The Court held that economic offences involving substantial amounts require different considerations -- The principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically when there are distinguishing factors -- The accused's conduct as a fugitive for over 20 months and multiple criminal antecedents were significant factors -- The High Court failed to consider the holistic picture while granting bail -- The offence involved cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust amounting to ₹6.5 crores -- Respondent No.1 was found to be operating under multiple aliases with forged documents -- The State's counter affidavit detailed the accused's evasion of arrest and non-cooperation in previous cases
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to respondent No.1 considering the serious nature of the economic offence, his criminal antecedents, and his conduct as a fugitive
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Allahabad High Court, and directed respondent No.1 to surrender before the Trial Court
2026 LawText (SC) (02) 40
Criminal Appeal No. ................ of 2026 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025)
SANJAY KUMAR J. , K. VINOD CHANDRAN J.
Not specified in provided text
Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against bail order
Remedy Sought
Appellant seeking setting aside of bail granted to respondent No.1 by High Court
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by grant of bail to accused in FIR involving economic offences
Previous Decisions
Sessions Judge rejected bail application on 29.08.2025 -- High Court granted bail on 12.11.2025 -- Supreme Court stayed bail order on 24.11.2025
Issues
Whether the High Court properly exercised discretion in granting bail considering the serious nature of economic offence
Whether principle of parity was correctly applied in bail consideration
Whether accused's conduct as fugitive and criminal antecedents were adequately considered
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that bail should not have been granted due to serious economic offence
State argued that High Court failed to consider holistic picture including accused's fugitive status
Respondent No.1 claimed entitlement to parity as co-accused were granted bail
Ratio Decidendi
Economic offences involving substantial amounts require different bail considerations -- Parity cannot be applied mechanically when distinguishing factors exist -- Accused's conduct as fugitive and criminal antecedents are crucial factors in bail determination -- High Court must consider holistic picture while exercising bail discretion
Judgment Excerpts
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
Respondent No.1 had remained a fugitive for more than 20 months since registration of the FIR
The investigation conclusively established that respondent No.1 was the principal offender and the master-mind behind the offence
Procedural History
FIR registered on 29.12.2023 -- Respondent No.1 arrested on 08.08.2025 after absconding -- Sessions Judge rejected bail on 29.08.2025 -- High Court granted bail on 12.11.2025 -- Supreme Court stayed bail order on 24.11.2025 -- Supreme Court heard appeal and set aside bail order
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
