Facts: The appellant filed an FIR against Respondent No. 1 and others for cheating and forgery involving a sum of over ₹6.5 crores related to foodgrain supply. Respondent No. 1 had allegedly used numerous aliases and forged Aadhaar and PAN cards to facilitate the fraud and evade arrest. After remaining a fugitive for over 20 months, he was apprehended only after a reward was declared. The investigation revealed three other FIRs against him in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. It was further noted that he had previously secured bail in another matter but failed to appear, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants, and the surety he provided was found to be fictitious.
Procedural Posture: The Sessions Court, Bahraich, initially rejected the bail plea of Respondent No. 1. However, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted him bail on 12.11.2025, primarily on the grounds of parity with co-accused, the period of incarceration, and the fact that the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The complainant (appellant) challenged this bail order before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail by applying the principle of parity and the nature of the trial (Magistrate-triable) while allegedly ignoring the criminal antecedents and conduct of the accused.
Holding: No, the High Court’s order granting bail was not sustainable in law or on facts. The Supreme Court set aside the bail order.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the High Court failed to take a holistic view of the matter. First, the assumption that the case was triable by a Magistrate was premature, as charges under Sections 409 and 467 of the IPC carry potential life imprisonment, allowing for committal to a Court of Sessions under Sections 209 or 323 of the CrPC. Second, the High Court ignored the "nefarious" conduct and criminal history of the accused, who was a "career criminal" and a "habitual offender" using multiple identities. The Court emphasized that while individual liberty is paramount, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the economic well-being and safety of society. The doctrine of parity cannot be blindly applied when an accused has distinctive features such as being the mastermind or having significant criminal antecedents.