Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary 2026 INSC 161 - Bail -Cancellation Past Criminal Record
Cancellation of Bail - Past criminal record and the conduct of the accused ignored.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Bail - Even in cases of cancellation of bail, the power to do so is not just limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances as the Court has the inherent power and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. One of the grounds, as relevant for exercise of such power, is where the past criminal record and the conduct of the accused are completely ignored while granting bail. (Para 15) 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. (Para 19)
Case Info
Case name and neutral citation:Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another, 2026 INSC 161
Coram:Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment date:17 February 2026
Statutes / Laws Referred
Indian Penal Code, 1860:Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B, 34 (some in other FIRs), and reference to 501 in a pleading (obviously meant to be 506).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:Sections 29, 209 and 323 (regarding sentencing powers of Magistrates and committal to Court of Sessions).
Case Law and Citations
- Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349
- Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 16 SCC 508
- Neeru Yadav v. State of UP and another, (2016) 15 SCC 422
- Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781
Three‑Sentence Summary
The complainant alleged that the accused, using multiple aliases and forged identity documents, cheated him of several crores of rupees in a foodgrains transaction, and the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the main accused on the ground of parity with co‑accused and because the case was said to be triable by a Magistrate. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents, his long abscondence, misuse of earlier bail, use of fake identities, addition of serious offences such as Sections 409 and 467 IPC (punishable up to life), and the possibility of committal to a Court of Sessions, thus rendering the bail order unsustainable. Setting aside the High Court’s bail order, the Court held that releasing such a habitual offender would pose a risk to society and directed that the trial be expedited.
