In a strong message against repeat financial offenders, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the bail granted to an accused allegedly involved in a ₹6.5 crore foodgrain fraud case from Uttar Pradesh.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran held that the Allahabad High Court had overlooked the accused’s criminal past and conduct while granting him relief.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
The appeal was filed by complainant Rakesh Mittal, challenging the High Court’s November 12, 2025 order granting bail to Ajay Pal Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary.
Background of the Case
The case arises from FIR No. 0568 of 2023 registered at Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation .
According to the complainant, he supplied foodgrains to four accused persons. While the total amount due was over ₹11.52 crore, he allegedly received only ₹5.02 crore. Cheques issued for the remaining amount were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
It was further alleged that the accused prepared forged documents and used fabricated addresses, including fake Aadhaar cards, to cheat him. During investigation, police reportedly recovered multiple identity documents bearing different names and even different fathers’ names, all with the same photograph .
Section 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or agent) was later added to the case. The matter was transferred to the Crime Branch considering the alleged cross-jurisdictional operation and the financial loss involved .
Arrest and Bail Proceedings
The accused was arrested on August 8, 2025, after remaining untraceable for over 20 months. The Sessions Court rejected his bail plea on August 29, 2025, noting that he had allegedly suppressed details of other FIRs registered against him .
However, the Allahabad High Court later granted him bail. The High Court relied on parity - meaning that since co-accused persons had been granted bail or anticipatory bail, he too should receive similar treatment .
The High Court also observed that the chargesheet had been filed and that the offences were triable by a Magistrate.
The complainant then approached the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
Court’s Observations
Hearing the matter, the Supreme Court made it clear that the case was not about cancelling bail due to new developments, but about examining whether the High Court’s order granting bail was legally sound.
The Bench noted that serious offences under Sections 409 and 467 IPC carry punishment up to life imprisonment or up to ten years. It observed that the High Court’s assumption that the matter was only triable by a Magistrate was “premature” .
The Court also emphasised that criminal antecedents must be carefully examined before granting bail.
Quoting earlier judgments, the Bench said liberty is valuable, but not absolute. “An individual cannot be a nuisance to the collective or a terror to the society,” the Court remarked while referring to past rulings .
Importantly, the Court underlined that financial crimes affect society deeply. It observed that economic well-being is part of the quality of life, and offences involving hard-earned money must be treated seriously.
The Bench recorded that the investigation revealed the accused had allegedly operated under numerous aliases and possessed multiple forged identity documents. His conduct in a previous Delhi case, where he allegedly failed to appear after being granted bail, was also noted .
“The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration,” the Court observed .
The judges further said that blindly applying the principle of parity without examining individual circumstances was improper.
Read also:- Madras High Court Orders Removal of Shops from Kanyakumari Temple Mandapam, Slams HR&CE
The Decision
Concluding that the High Court failed to take a holistic view, the Supreme Court held that the bail order “cannot be sustained either on facts or in law” .
The Court set aside the November 12, 2025 bail order and allowed the appeal.
It also directed the State to ensure that the trial is expedited by taking all necessary measures .
With this, the accused will continue to remain in custody.
Case Title: Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025)
Decision Date: February 17, 2026
