The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of an advocate accused of obtaining his law degree and Bar Council registration on the basis of a forged Intermediate (Class XII) marksheet. The Court observed that an advocate resorting to forgery commits a “grave and deliberate fraud upon the institution of justice.”
Justice Krishan Pahal, while dismissing the bail plea of Ashish Shukla, emphasized that the nobility of the legal profession rests on integrity and honesty. The Court found the applicant’s defense—that termites had selectively destroyed his Class XII certificate—to be “impossible” and “doubtful.”
The applicant, a practicing advocate, sought bail in a case involving charges of cheating and forgery. The core allegation was that he had failed his Class XII examination but forged documents to pursue higher education and enroll as an advocate. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and the conduct of the accused, denied bail, citing the serious nature of the fraud committed by a legal professional.
Background
The case originates from an First Information Report (FIR) registered as Case Crime No. 89 of 2025 at Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint by Aridaman Singh, an advocate at the Kanpur District Court. He submitted an application to the President of the Kanpur Bar Association alleging that the applicant, Ashish Shukla (Registration No. 7254 of 2001), had forged his educational documents to secure registration with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the President of the Bar Association forwarded the complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, leading to the registration of the FIR.
Investigation records produced before the Court indicated that while the applicant claimed to have passed his Class XII examination in the academic session 1994-95 from D.A.V. College, Kanpur, official verification contradicted this claim. A report from the Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (UP Board), Regional Office, Prayagraj, dated March 18, 2025, stated that the applicant had actually failed the Class XII examination in 1994 under Roll No. 0251116.
Arguments of the Applicant
Senior Counsel Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, appearing for the applicant, argued that the criminal proceedings were the result of personal rivalry. He submitted that the President of the Kanpur Bar Association, Indeever Bajpai, was an “interested person” as he had appeared as counsel against the applicant’s father in a separate civil matter.
Regarding the non-production of the controversial Class XII certificate, the defense presented a unique plea. The counsel argued:
“The documents pertaining to Class-XIIth of the applicant have been destroyed by termite and are therefore impossible to be furnished.”
The applicant further contended that:
- He had lodged an e-complaint regarding the missing documents on May 5, 2025.
- He had cooperated with the investigation by furnishing his B.Com and Bar Council registration certificates.
- His arrest on December 17, 2025, from Nainital was illegal as the proclamation of reward against him was made without following the due process under Sections 82 or 83 of the Cr.P.C.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (1980) regarding the definition of “valuable security.”
Arguments of the Prosecution
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Sri Manish Goyal, and the informant’s counsel, vehemently opposed the bail.
The prosecution highlighted that the applicant had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge on April 21, 2025, on the condition that he furnish his educational credentials. His failure to do so led to the cancellation of his anticipatory bail on November 15, 2025.
Challenging the ‘termite’ theory, the prosecution argued that it was “inconceivable how termite could selectively destroy only the Class-XIIth certificate” while leaving all other educational documents intact.
The State further submitted that the applicant had knowingly made false representations in examination forms, claiming to have passed Class XII with 52% marks, despite having failed. It was argued that by practicing law on forged credentials, the applicant was “playing with the lives and liberty of innocent and helpless litigants.”
Court’s Analysis
Justice Krishan Pahal took a stern view of the allegations, invoking the Sanskrit Shloka “Acharah paramo dharmah” (Righteous conduct is the highest duty).
Addressing the standards expected of a legal professional, the Court observed:
“An advocate is not merely a professional engaged in litigation; he is an officer of the Court and a vital pillar in the administration of justice. The nobility of the legal profession rests upon unwavering integrity, honesty, and fidelity to the rule of law. When an advocate himself resorts to illegality—more so by forging his own credentials to gain entry into the profession—it constitutes a grave and deliberate fraud upon the institution of justice.”
The Court categorically rejected the defense regarding the destruction of documents:
“The explanation put forth by the applicant regarding the alleged destruction of the Class-XIIth documents by termite appears impossible, especially when other educational records are admittedly intact, rendering his defence doubtful at this stage.”
The Bench noted that the material on record prima facie established that the applicant had failed the Class XII examination but falsely represented himself as having passed to obtain his graduation and law degrees. The Court also remarked that the applicant’s failure to comply with the conditions of his anticipatory bail reflected a “disregard for the judicial process.”
Decision
Holding that the allegations struck at the root of public confidence in the judicial system, the High Court rejected the bail application.
However, the Court directed the trial court to decide the pending case expeditiously, referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015) and Hussain vs. Union of India (2017).
Case Details
- Case Title: Ashish Shukla vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3312 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Justice Krishan Pahal
- Counsel for Applicant: Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla (Senior Advocate), Abhinav Jaiswal, Nidhi
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Sri Manish Goyal (A.A.G.), Sri Pankaj Saxena (A.G.A.-I), Sri V.P. Srivastava (Senior Advocate), Sri Rakesh Pandey (Senior Advocate), Sri Padmaker Pandey
