The Supreme Court observed that the strict bail standards typically reserved for heinous violent crimes are equally applicable to serious financial fraud.
According to a LiveLaw report, justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran emphasised that economic offences are not victimless, as they directly jeopardise the financial security and overall quality of life of the citizenry. By treating these crimes with the same gravity as physical violence, the apex court highlighted that the “life and liberty” protected by law includes the right to be secure from predatory financial exploitation.
Overturning the high court’s error
The ruling came as the apex court revoked a bail order from the Allahabad High Court involving a repeat offender.
The bench criticised the lower court for granting release based solely on the principle of “parity” with other co-accused. The justices noted that the high court failed to consider the individual’s specific history including his central role in the scam and his persistent track record of criminal behaviour. Blindly applying parity without weighing the risk of recidivism was deemed a judicial oversight.
Fraudulent scheme and background
The underlying case involved a massive breach of trust where a complainant was allegedly defrauded of over Rs6.5 crore in foodgrain supplies. The accused reportedly utilised a sophisticated web of forged Aadhaar cards, multiple aliases and fake identities to siphon off funds. Despite the severity of these allegations including forgery and criminal intimidation, the high court had initially favoured release because the trial was to be held before a Magistrate and a charge sheet had been submitted.
Habitual offending and public risk
In its final decision, the Supreme Court labelled the accused a “career criminal” and a “menace to society.” The bench pointed out that the individual had previously jumped bail, absconded for nearly two years and continued to commit similar crimes while under judicial indulgence. The Supreme Court concluded that releasing such a persistent offender poses a significant hazard to the public, asserting that past conduct and the use of deceptive identities must be primary factors in any bail deliberation.
