The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to an accused alleged to be the mastermind behind an organized racket involving the fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualifications. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, in the judgment delivered on February 11, 2026, termed the High Court’s order as “legally unsustainable” and “vitiated by non-application of mind” for ignoring vital evidence regarding the forged nature of the accused’s degree and his suppression of criminal antecedents.
Highlighting the growing trend of litigants suppressing material facts to secure discretionary relief, the Apex Court has also issued a “Disclosure Framework” and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the judgment to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to consider incorporating mandatory disclosure rules for bail applications.
Factual Background
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated July 30, 2025, passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 22824 of 2025, granting bail to Mazahar Khan (Respondent No. 2). Khan was an accused in FIR No. 314 of 2024, registered at Police Station Saray Khwaja, Jaunpur, under Sections 419, 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR, lodged by Zeba Khan (the appellant), alleged that Respondent No. 2 was running a large-scale racket involving the fabrication of academic certificates. Specifically, it was alleged that Khan had procured a forged Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree and marksheets from “Sarvodaya Group of Institutions,” purportedly affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Based on these forged documents, Khan allegedly enrolled as an advocate and appeared before the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
Submissions of the Parties
The appellant argued that the High Court granted bail by ignoring material evidence on record. It was submitted that Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, vide a letter dated August 10, 2024, had categorically informed that the Sarvodaya Group of Institutions was not affiliated with it and that the marksheet relied upon by the accused was never issued by the University. Furthermore, Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya had clarified in a communication that it does not offer any law course.
Counsel for the appellant highlighted that Respondent No. 2 had suppressed the existence of nine FIRs registered against him, including cases of forgery, cheating, and criminal intimidation. It was further alleged that despite the registration of the FIR, the accused continued to project himself as an advocate and secured membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
The Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appeal, confirming that the accused is a “history-sheeter” and that the investigation had unearthed grave allegations substantiated by official communications from the University.
Per contra, the counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that the FIR was a result of a long-standing family property dispute involving the complainant, his sister-in-law. It was argued that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the accused had not misused the liberty granted to him.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court proceeded on “false, misleading and suppressed facts” presented by the accused. The Bench noted that the official communications from the University and the Institution went to the “very root of the prosecution case” and could not be brushed aside.
“The allegations against Respondent No. 2 are not confined to an isolated instance of forgery but prima facie disclose systematic and organised course of conduct involving the fabrication, procurement and use of forged educational qualifications, particularly law degrees, which has a direct bearing on the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.”
On Suppression of Antecedents: The Court took serious objection to the fact that Respondent No. 2 had stated before the High Court that he had no criminal history, whereas the record revealed nine registered FIRs. Citing precedents such as Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024) and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016), the Court held that incorrect and incomplete disclosure materially influenced the exercise of discretion.
“Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice… This conduct cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse but reflects a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts.”
Annulment vs. Cancellation of Bail: The Court clarified the legal distinction between cancelling bail due to post-bail misconduct and setting aside a bail order that was legally untenable at its inception. Relying on Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher (2024), the Bench held that where a bail order suffers from non-application of mind or ignores relevant material, appellate interference is a “judicial imperative.”
Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order.
- Bail Cancelled: The bail granted to Mazahar Khan was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within two weeks.
- No Transfer of Investigation: The Court declined the prayer to transfer the investigation to a special agency, noting that the chargesheet had already been filed and there was no evidence of bias in the police investigation.
Mandatory Disclosure Guidelines
To curb the practice of suppressing facts, the Supreme Court provided an illustrative “Disclosure Framework” for bail applications. The Court observed that every applicant seeking bail must disclose:
- Criminal Antecedents: Details of all FIRs, status (Pending/Acquitted/Convicted).
- Previous Bail Applications: Details of earlier applications and their outcome.
- Coercive Processes: Information on Non-Bailable Warrants or Proclaimed Offender status.
- Case Details: FIR number, sections, and maximum punishment.
- Custody & Trial Status: Period of custody and stage of proceedings.
The Court directed:
“The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. The High Courts may examine the feasibility of issuing appropriate administrative directions or incorporating suitable provisions in their respective Rules… A copy of this judgment shall also be circulated to the District Judiciary for guidance.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12669 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
