RAKESH MITTAL versus AJAY PAL GUPTA @ SONU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER

RAKESH MITTAL versus AJAY PAL GUPTA @ SONU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER

The High Court erred in mechanically applying the parity principle without considering respondent No.1's individual and distinguishing features — habitual offending, absconding, multiple aliases and forged IDs, misuse of earlier bail and the serious nature of offences including s.409 and s.467 IPC which may warrant commitment to Sessions — and therefore the bail order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Parties
Appellant Complainant: Rakesh Mittal; Respondent Accused: Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary; Respondent State: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Bail Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Parity Principle, Offences of Pecuniary Nature, Criminal Antecedents, Absconding, Triability and Commitment to Sessions, Cancellation and Grant of Bail
Bail Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Parity Principle Offences of Pecuniary Nature Criminal Antecedents Absconding Triability and Commitment to Sessions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rakesh Mittal

Appellant Complainant

Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary

Respondent Accused

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Bail Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in extending the parity principle to grant bail to respondent No.1
  2. 2 Whether the offences alleged (including s.409 IPC and s.467 IPC) preclude the assumption that the case is triable by a Magistrate for purposes of bail
  3. 3 Whether respondent No.1's antecedents, absconding and use of aliases justified refusal of bail

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in mechanically applying the parity principle without considering respondent No.1's individual and distinguishing features — habitual offending, absconding, multiple aliases and forged IDs, misuse of earlier bail and the serious nature of offences including s.409 and s.467 IPC which may warrant commitment to Sessions — and therefore the bail order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 12.11.2025 granting bail to respondent No.1 set aside
  • State shall ensure that the trial in the case is expedited by taking all necessary measures