Supreme court: When the person accused of economic offence is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity?

  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. {Para 19}

20. In the case on hand, the investigation against Respondent No. 1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father's name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them.

21. Further, the fact that Respondent No. 1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, Respondent No. 1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found.

22. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case. Given the fact that Respondent No. 1 has not turned over a new leaf, despite the indulgence shown by grant of bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, as evidenced by the FIRs registered against him over the years, we are of the opinion that letting him loose on society would only pose a risk and hazard to others.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Sentencing Policy for Habitual Offenders in Maharashtra

1. Key Law

·       Bombay Habitual Offenders Act, 1959 (applies to all of Maharashtra)

·       Supported by Maharashtra Habitual Offenders Rules, 1960

2. Who is a Habitual Offender?

·       A person convicted and jailed more than twice in 5 years for crimes like theft, robbery, etc. (not for the same incident).

Print Page

Whether the court can convict an accused for an offence of being a habitual offender based on his confession even if he is not convicted twice for a crime U/S 411 of IPC?

  I do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel

for the appellant that despite the confession of appellant, learned trial court should have asked for two judgments in which appellant would have been convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. because confession made by the accused, shall be taken as a whole. It cannot be in parts because it was made regarding same occurrence and he made confession with his own freewill and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in question no.6 it was specifically put before the appellant as to whether he habitually used to deal in stolen goods. Appellant did not deny this question and in question no. 11, he also said that trial was held against him on account of commission of offences by him. It is important to mention that offences committed by the appellant which he confessed include offence under Section 413 I.P.C. also. {Para 18}

19. After confession made by the appellant, no other evidence was required to convict him. The confession regarding other offences under Sections 177, 171, 419, 417 and 411 I.P.C. is not challenged by appellant. Hence, when conviction is made as a whole regarding any occurrence or set of occurrences, it shall be taken as a whole. It cannot be fragmented into pieces and accused cannot at later stage claim that confessional statement made by him, should be considered regarding some of the offences only.

20. P.W.-2, Abhay Pandey, Head Constable was produced by the

prosecution before the learned trial court as arresting witness, who

said in his statement that on 12.03.2016 he along with other members

of police party of P.S. G.R.P. Gorakhpur was present at platform

no.2A. At the time of checking, accused-appellant was arrested by the police along with other co-accused persons and two stolen mobile  phones, one stolen motorcycle were recovered from his possession apart from Alprazolam powder. It was also stated by this witness that at the time of arrest, appellant was having a fake identity card of U.P. Police and was wearing fake uniform of U.P. Police. Above statement  was made by P.W.-2 in his examination-in-chief and it is very pertinent to note that P.W.-2 was not cross-examined by the accusedappellant, rather he made the confession of his guilt under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, in my opinion, confessional statement of accusedappellant cannot be treated as partial and applicable to some of the offences only.

21. In view of the above, I am unable to agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that for convicting the accused under Section 413 I.P.C. it is mandatory particularly after confession, that accused should have already been convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. twice or more than twice because accused appellant has himself made confession before the learned trial court that he was habitual in dealing with the stolen properties. It is not the case of the appellant nor he argued that accused did not make confession with freewill.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1534 of 2020

Vinod Mali   Vs  State of U.P.

Coram: Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

Delivered on :- 19.08.2021

Print Page