The Supreme Court has held that the yardsticks applied while considering bail in grave and violent crimes must be applied to cases involving serious financial wrongdoing, noting that economic offences can erode the financial security and overall quality of life of ordinary citizens.

 A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran annulled a decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to an accused described as a repeat offender in financial fraud cases. The top court found that the High Court had relied primarily on parity with co-accused, without adequately examining crucial aspects such as the accused’s specific role, prior criminal record and repeated involvement in similar activities.

The Court referred to earlier rulings, including Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 781, which caution against granting bail where there is a risk to witnesses or public order. Though those cases arose from violent offences, the Bench clarified that the rationale underlying them applies with equal force to large-scale financial fraud.

 “Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that 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,” the Court observed.

The dispute stems from allegations of large-scale cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and intimidation. The complainant claimed he supplied foodgrains worth more than ?11.52 crore to the accused and his associates but received only ?5.02 crore in return.

The balance amount was allegedly misappropriated using forged documents, fabricated addresses and multiple false identities. Investigators alleged that the accused operated under various aliases, held forged Aadhaar and PAN cards, evaded arrest for nearly 20 months and was apprehended only after a reward was declared.

A Sessions Court had declined bail earlier, recording that the accused had concealed his criminal history and misled the court.

The High Court, however, granted bail on grounds of parity, observing that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, the charge sheet had been filed, and the accused had undergone some custody.