Zeba Khanv.State of U.P. & Others

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2, Mazahar Khan, in connection with FIR No. of 2024 registered at Police Station Saray Khwaja, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The prosecution case, as borne out from the record, is that FIR No. 314 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 was lodged by the complainant alleging the existence of a large-scale organised scam and racket involving fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualifications and academic certificates, particularly within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that under the said racket, individuals were falsely projecting themselves as advocates and were appearing before this Court as well as various High Courts.

4. The specific allegations against Respondent No. 2 are that he had been continuously residing in the State of Maharashtra for substantial periods, including between the years 2016 and 2019. During the said period, Respondent No. 2 neither took admission in any recognised law college in Uttar Pradesh nor appeared in any law examination. Despite this, he allegedly fabricated and procured a forged Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree and corresponding marksheets bearing Enrolment / Roll No. PU-16/6710273, purportedly issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions, claimed to be affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. It is further alleged that the said forged decree and marksheets were subsequently used by Respondent No. 2 to falsely project himself as a duly qualified advocate.

5. The complainant further alleged that upon verification, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, by letter dated 10.08.2024, categorically informed that Sarvodaya Group of Institutions was not affiliated with the University and that the marksheet relied upon by Respondent No. 2 was never issued by the University. It was also stated that Respondent No. 2 had been preparing, using and circulating such forged degrees and certificates not only for himself but also for others, thereby operating a systematic racket for supplying fake academic qualifications. In furtherance thereof, Respondent No. 2 allegedly printed and circulated visiting cards bearing the national emblem “Satyameva Jayate” falsely displaying multiple academic qualifications such as LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D., all purportedly obtained through fraudulent means. These acts were intended to lend legitimacy to Respondent No. 2, attract unsuspecting persons, and induce them into procuring forged degrees through him. The FIR records that these activities were not isolated but formed part of a larger criminal conspiracy involving several fake degree holders linked with Respondent No. 2.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 28.04.2025. His bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, vide order dated 12.05.2025. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. of 2025, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 30.07.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant / appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court while granting bail to Respondent No. 2, completely ignored material evidence available on record and proceeded on false, misleading and suppressed facts presented on behalf of the said respondent. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed the existence of as many as nine FIRs registered against him in order to secure a favourable bail order. The allegations in these FIRs relate to serious offences including forgery, cheating, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, theft, trespass and rioting.

7.1. It was further submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in placing reliance on a copy of the result with marks downloaded from an online verification portal, which was produced by Respondent No. 2 to substantiate his claim of possessing a valid LL. B degree. Respondent No. 2 is, in fact, accused of having forged the marksheets and degree pertaining to the very same result. Even otherwise, the downloaded marksheet itself contains a categorical disclaimer that it cannot be treated as an original marksheet. This vital and material aspect was completely overlooked by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction.

7.2. The learned counsel submitted that the High Court failed to take into consideration the letter issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, which categorically states that the University has never issued any LL. B degree or marksheet to Respondent No. 2. Equally ignored was the communication issued by Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya, which unequivocally records that the said institution does not offer any law course whatsoever.

7.3. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 2 falsely projected himself as an innocent victim by asserting that he was unaware of the forged nature of the LL. B. degree. This claim, it was contended, is demonstrably false. Even after registration of the present FIR, and despite the degree being prima facie found to be forged, Respondent No. 2 clandestinely appeared before this Court and managed to secure membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association, thereby continuing his misrepresentation.

7.4. The learned counsel submitted that subsequent to the registration of the present FIR in the year 2024, four additional FIRs have been lodged against Respondent No. 2. Out of these, three FIRs were registered by different Universities across two States, namely Maharashtra & Karnataka, and pertain to offences relating to forgery and facilitation of forged academic degrees in diverse disciplines including law and M. Phil (Health Sciences).

7.5. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 2 is the President of a Public Education Trust which runs Kohinoor Arts, Commerce and Science College. An FIR registered by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University reveals a gross abuse of position by Respondent No. 2. The said college was an examination centre for the University, where Respondent No. 2 himself was appearing for the M.A. (Hindi) examination. A fact-finding committee constituted by the University recorded that Respondent No. 2 coerced teachers of the college to write the examination on his behalf by exploiting his position as President of the institution.

7.6. It was submitted that after issuance of notice by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025, Respondent No. 2 grossly abused the liberty granted to him by stalking and intimidating the appellant with the intent of forcing her to withdraw the proceedings. It was further alleged that Respondent No.2 clandestinely took photographs of the appellant and circulated them on social media platforms in order to malign and defame her. Additionally, Respondent No. 2 secured admission into an LL. M. programme at Sandip University, Nashik, by once again relying upon the very same forged and fabricated LL. B. degree.

7.7. The learned counsel pointed out that despite a specific direction issued by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025, Respondent No. 2 disclosed only four out of the nine FIRs in his counter affidavit. Further, in the petition filed before the High Court seeking quashing of the present FIR, Respondent No. 2 falsely asserted that he had no criminal antecedents. In the said petition, he portrayed himself as a practising advocate of this Court in order to trivialise the allegations and claim reputational injury. Contradictorily, in the bail application filed before the High Court, Respondent No. 2 stated that he does not practise as an advocate in any court of law, thereby clearly approbating and reprobating to suit his convenience.

7.8. It was further submitted that the State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, after issuance of notice by this Court in the present proceedings, removed the enrolment of Respondent No. 2 and debarred him from practice as an advocate.

7.9. The learned counsel submitted that the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, vide order dated 23.09.2025 made scathing observations against Respondent No. 2, noting his deliberate and repeated non-compliance with judicial orders, including orders passed by this Court. The High Court observed that Respondent No. 2 is a person of criminal turpitude with no respect for the rule of law, and that it was a travesty that such a person was heading an academic institution.

7.10. It was submitted that a holistic appraisal of the material on record clearly establishes that Respondent No. 2 not only forged his LL. B. degree to falsely project himself as an advocate, but has consistently approached courts with unclean hands. Even assuming arguendo that Respondent No. 2 did not himself forge the documents, the undisputed fact remains that he has repeatedly procured, relied upon and benefited from forged and fabricated degrees. As on date, it has come to light that Respondent No. 2 holds a forged LL. B. degree and a forged M. Phil. degree, on the basis of which he also obtained a doctorate. There are further allegations of his active involvement in facilitating forged degrees for others.

7.11. The learned counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2 appears to be integrally connected with a larger, organised racket engaged in the manufacture, circulation and monetisation of forged academic degrees of reputed institutions. Being the head of an academic institution, Respondent No. 2 was uniquely positioned to operate such activities under a veneer of legitimacy, thereby posing a serious threat to public confidence in the education system and the administration of justice.

7.12. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was contended that the impugned order granting bail to Respondent No. 2 is wholly unsustainable both in law and on facts, and deserves to be set aside. Having regard to the nature, gravity and magnitude of the allegations, and in order to safeguard the integrity of the investigation as well as public confidence in the justice delivery system, the learned counsel also prayed for transfer of the investigation to a specialised agency.

8. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 – State of Uttar Pradesh supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and prayed for setting aside the order granting bail to Respondent No. 2.

8.1. It was submitted that FIR No. 314 of 2024 came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the appellant against Respondent No. 2 and two others, alleging the existence of an organised racket involving forged LL. B. degrees and fabricated marksheets.

8.2. The learned counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2 is a history sheeter, with as many as nine criminal cases pending against him.

8.3. It was further submitted that the investigation has unearthed grave and serious allegations against Respondent No. 2, which are substantiated by official communications issued by statutory and academic authorities. Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, vide its letter dated 10.08.2024 addressed to the appellant, categorically informed that Sarvodaya Group of Institutions was not affiliated with the said University and that the marksheet relied upon by Respondent No. 2 was never issued by the University. Further, Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya, Mirganj, Jaunpur, vide its letter dated 09.05.2025 addressed to the Investigating Officer, stated that the college was granted recognition only for certain Bachelor of Arts courses by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, and that it does not offer any LL.B. (law) course.

8.4. It was also submitted that as per the Bar Council of India, there are 23 colleges affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, which are recognised to offer either the three-year or five-year LL. B. courses. Significantly, Sarvodaya Group of Institutions does not find mention in the said list of recognised law colleges, despite Respondent No. 2 claiming to have completed his three-year LL. B. course from the said institution.

8.5. The learned counsel further submitted that the enrolment details of Respondent No. 2 were forwarded to the Sub-Inspector by the District Bar Association, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra, vide letter dated 05.09.2024. Respondent No. 2 was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 26.06.2023 bearing Roll No. MAH/ 2493/2023. It was also submitted that Respondent No. 2 secured membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association bearing Membership No. K-00408/OS, and that a temporary membership card valid for two years was issued to him on 04.12.2024.

8.6. It was urged that the nature of the allegations against Respondent No. 2 is extremely serious. His conduct, which includes falsely projecting himself as an advocate before courts and public authorities, reflects a deliberate and sustained abuse of the judicial process and constitutes a continuing offence, directly undermining public faith in the legal system.

8.7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the High Court erred in granting bail granted to Respondent No. 2 by the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 – accused submitted that Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 28.04.2025 and was granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 after completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet. It was contended that the present appeal is an abuse of the process of law and is motivated by long-standing family and property disputes.

9.1. It was further submitted that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that cancellation of bail is not to be ordered mechanically but only upon the existence of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, intimidation or influence of witnesses, likelihood of absconding, or violation of bail conditions. According to the learned counsel, none of these circumstances arise in the present case.

9.2. It was contended that the record does not disclose any material suggesting a likelihood of tampering with evidence, nor has any perversity or patent illegality in the impugned order been demonstrated so as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The bail granted by the High Court is neither arbitrary nor perverse and has been passed after due consideration of relevant factors, including the absence of any custodial necessity.

9.3. The learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 2 has not misused the liberty granted to him, has scrupulously complied with the bail conditions, and has neither intimidated witnesses nor obstructed the administration of justice. It was urged that Respondent No. 2 has cooperated throughout the investigation, poses no flight risk, and has not committed any offence while on bail. It was submitted that mere reiteration of allegations contained in the FIR cannot constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail.

9.4. It was also submitted that the FIR emanates from deep-rooted family and property disputes, particularly relating to the management and control of Kohinoor Education Society, Aurangabad, and other pending civil litigations between family members, including a Special Leave Petition stated to be pending before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has initiated multiple proceedings against Respondent No. 2 and his family members across different States and that the present criminal proceedings are intended as a pressure tactic in the backdrop of ongoing civil disputes.

9.5. It was further urged that Respondent No. 2 is not the main accused in most of the cases relied upon by the appellant and has been implicated primarily with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It was also pointed out that proceedings in Criminal Case No. 42 of 2025 arising out of FIR No. 314 of 2024 have already been stayed by the High Court in quash proceedings, and therefore, cancellation of bail at this stage would be wholly unwarranted and oppressive.

9.6. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present appeal is actuated by personal animosity and that no legally sustainable ground for cancellation of bail has been made out.

9.7. On these grounds, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed as being devoid of merit.

10. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 – Bar Council of India submitted that vide order dated 17.11.2025, the name of Respondent No. 2 along with his enrolment number has been removed from the rolls of the Bar Council and he has consequently been debarred from appearing before any court of law. It was further submitted that any order that may be passed by this Court shall be duly complied with by the Bar Council of India.

11. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed before us.

12. In the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the bail granted by the High Court on the ground that the impugned order is manifestly perverse, legally untenable, and vitiated by non-application of mind. The High Court proceeded to grant bail by placing reliance on documents whose genuineness constitutes the very subject matter of the criminal prosecution, compounded by the suppression of material facts and serious criminal antecedents on the part of Respondent No. 2. Such an approach strikes at the very foundation of settled bail jurisprudence.

13. It is trite that while personal liberty occupies a position of high constitutional value, an order granting bail does not enjoy immunity from appellate scrutiny where it is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or passed in disregard of material considerations. The discretion to grant bail, though wide, is structured by well-settled legal principles and is neither uncanalised nor unfettered.

14. In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702), and Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2580), this Court authoritatively clarified that cancellation of bail on account of post-bail misconduct stands on a fundamentally different footing from annulment of a bail order which is itself unjustified or legally unsustainable at its inception. An order granting bail is liable to be interfered with where it reveals reliance on irrelevant considerations, ignores relevant material, or suffers from perversity without the necessity of waiting for supervening circumstances.

15. In Manik Madhukar Sarve and others v. Vitthal Damuji Meher and others ((2024) 10 SCC 753), in which, one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) was a member of the Bench, this Court set aside the grant of bail in appeal, holding that the discretion exercised by the High Court was vitiated. The Court comprehensively restated the parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction to grant bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, criminal antecedents, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses, the risk of abscondence, and the overall impact on society.

16. Recently, in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2732), this Court once again crystallised the distinction between an appeal against grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail. It was reiterated that in an appeal against grant of bail, the superior court is concerned with examining the legality, propriety, and correctness of the bail order itself, and not the subsequent conduct of the accused. Where the bail order suffers from perversity, illegality, non-consideration of relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence, impact on society, or criminal antecedents, interference is fully justified.

17. Thus, a consistent and well settled doctrinal thread emerges from the aforesaid decisions: the power to grant bail, though discretionary, is subject to judicial discipline and appellate oversight. While personal liberty remains a cherished constitutional value, a bail order is liable to be interfered with where the exercise of discretion is perverse, illegal, or manifestly unjustified; where it is founded on irrelevant or extraneous considerations; or where material and relevant factors bearing on the grant of bail have been ignored.

18. Equally well-settled is the distinction between an appeal against an order granting bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail founded on post-bail conduct or supervening circumstances. In an appeal against the grant of bail, the focus of judicial scrutiny is the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the bail order as it stood at the time of its grant. Where such an order is shown to suffer from non-application of mind, reliance on disputed or prima facie suspect material forming the subject-matter of trial, suppression or non-consideration of material facts, or disregard of binding legal principles, annulment of the bail order is not only permissible but warranted in order to avert a miscarriage of justice.

19. Accordingly, where a bail order is demonstrated to be legally untenable or fundamentally perverse, interference by the appellate court is not an exception, but a judicial imperative. Such interference does not trench upon the sanctity of personal liberty; rather, it subserves the rule of law by ensuring that discretionary relief is granted in conformity with settled legal standards and that the administration of criminal justice is not undermined by arbitrary or capricious orders.

20. The criminal proceedings arise out of FIR No. 314 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 lodged by the complainant, who is related to Respondent No. 2 and is stated to be his sister-in-law. It is not in dispute that there are existing disputes between the parties relating to ancestral and family property, and that civil proceedings in that regard are pending.

21. It is alleged in the FIR that Respondent No. 2 had been projecting himself as possessing a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree purportedly issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions, which was claimed to be affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.

22. According to the prosecution, the law degree and marksheet are forged and fabricated, and Respondent No. 2 deliberately relied upon such documents to falsely project himself as a law graduate. It is further alleged that on the strength of these forged credentials, he appeared before this Court and other Courts. The accusations extend beyond personal use and include allegations that Respondent No. 2 was actively involved in preparing, using and circulating forged degrees and certificates for others as well, thereby operating an organised racket facilitating fake educational qualifications. Thus, serious allegations have been made against Respondent No. 2.

23. The High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 based on the submissions advanced on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the LL.B. degree was genuine and issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions and that the informant being his sister-in-law, had falsely implicated him due to an ongoing property dispute.

24. However, the material placed on record prima facie contradicts these assertions. A communication dated 05.09.2024 issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, categorically states that Sarvodaya Group of Institutions was not affiliated with the University. Further, during investigation, the Investigating Officer received a communication dated 09.05.2025 from Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya, Mirganj, Jaunpur, clarifying that the institution had recognition only for seven Bachelor of Arts courses and did not conduct LL.B. classes.

25. At this stage, the prosecution case stands fortified by the aforesaid categorical communications that the marksheet relied upon by Respondent No. 2 was never issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University and that the institution in question had no affiliation for imparting legal education. These materials go to the very root of the prosecution case and cannot be brushed aside as peripheral. Even otherwise, the disclaimer appearing on the marksheet downloaded by Respondent No. 2 clearly states that it cannot be treated as an original marksheet and ought to have alerted the High Court to exercise circumspection. There are further allegations that the website or portal reflecting the marksheet itself is forged, that the email ID appearing therein is common to websites of other institutions, that the mobile number provided is defunct, and that the website appears to be a mirror website of another University.

26. The allegations against Respondent No. 2 are thus 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. The details of the criminal cases registered against Respondent No. 2 are as follows:

S. No.	FIR Details	Status
1.	FIR No. 8/2025 dated 14.01.2025 registered u/s 34, 419, 420, 465 IPC at Thilaknagar Police Station, Bengaluru City	Bail Granted (Pending)
2.	FIR No. 62/2025 dated 26.03.2025 registered u/s 318(4), 318(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) BNS at Begampura Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar	Bail Granted (Pending)
3.	FIR NO. 232/2025 dated 06.06.2025 registered u/s 318, 319(2), 3(5) BNS and s. 3 and 5 of the Maharashtra University, Board and other specified examinations (Prevention of Malpractices) Act, 1982 at Khultabad Police Station, Aurangabad Rural	Bail Granted (Pending)
4.	FIR No. 314/2024 dated 23.08.2024 registered u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Sarai Khwaja Police Station, Jaunpur, UP	Bail Granted (Pending)
5.	FIR No. 136/2023 dated 04.07.2023 registered u/s 452, 379, 143, 147, 504, 506 IPC at Harsul Police Station, Aurangabad Rural	Bail Granted (Pending)
6.	FIR No. 124/2025 dated 23.03.2025 registered u/s 115(2), 3(5), 333, 351(3), 352 BNS at City Chowk Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar	Bail Granted (Pending)
7.	FIR No. 338/2016 dated 12.10.2016 registered u/s 354A, 504, 34 IPC at Khultabad Police Station	Bail Granted (Pending)
8.	FIR NO. 331/2011 dated 13.09.2011 registered u/s 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 472, 34 IPC at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar	Bail Granted (Pending)
9.	FIR NO. 48/2011 dated 08.04.2011 registered u/s 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 34 IPC at Khultabad Police Station.	Acquitted (Appeal Pending)

27. The above tabulation demonstrates that multiple FIRs have been registered against Respondent No. 2 across different States alleging similar offences relating to educational fraud and forgery.

28. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another ((2012) 9 SCC 446), this Court underscored that criminal antecedents cannot be ignored, particularly where the nature of allegations and their societal impact are grave.

29. Similarly, in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ((2016) 15 SCC 422), this Court set aside a bail order on the ground that relevant factors, including criminal antecedents, had been completely ignored, holding that such a grant of bail amounted to a deviant exercise of discretion warranting appellate interference.

30. The principles reiterated by a three-Judge Bench in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and another ((2022) 4 SCC 497) further emphasise that while personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is invaluable, courts must balance such liberty against the nature of the accusations, supporting material, criminal antecedents, and the broader societal impact. Bail discretion must be exercised judiciously and supported by reasons grounded in the material on record.

31. Of particular concern in the present case is the prima facie material indicating that Respondent No. 2 suppressed his criminal antecedents before the High Court by stating that he had no criminal history except the present FIR. Such incorrect and incomplete disclosure appears to have materially influenced the exercise of discretion in his favour, thereby vitiating the bail order.

32. The submission that Respondent No. 2 has not misused liberty granted to him cannot be considered in isolation. There are prima facie allegations of stalking and intimidation of the appellant after the grant of bail. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2025, expressly cautioned Respondent No. 2 that any attempt to intimidate or coerce the appellant into withdrawing the proceedings would invite strict action. The existence of a family or property dispute does not dilute the gravity of allegations involving impersonation as a legal professional and the use of forged credentials before courts, which have serious public and institutional ramifications extending far beyond a private dispute.

33. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 granting bail to Respondent No. 2 is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

34. The appellant has further sought a direction for transfer of the investigation in the present case to a special agency, alleging the existence of a larger racket involving forged degrees and invoking considerations of public interest.

35. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the investigation has already culminated in the filing of a chargesheet on 14.05.2025, and cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.05.2025.

36. In Disha v. State of Gujarat and others ((2011) 13 SCC 337), this Court was concerned with allegations relating to a large-scale financial scam involving collection of approximately Rs. 60 crores on the pretext of assuring high returns. Despite the filing of the chargesheet, a prayer was made for transfer of investigation to an impartial agency such as the CBI. Rejecting the said prayer, this Court held that once investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed, transfer of investigation can be directed only in exceptional circumstances demonstrating a real likelihood of bias, mala fides, or abuse of power.

37. Similarly, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and others ((2013) 12 SCC 480), declined to transfer investigation to the CBI despite allegations of delay and improper investigation. This Court held that mere dissatisfaction with the manner of investigation or bald allegations unsupported by cogent material cannot justify invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction for transfer of investigation to a central or special agency.

38. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, no specific or substantiated material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the investigation conducted by the State Police was vitiated by mala fides, bias, or extraneous influence attributable to Respondent No. 2. There is also no allegation of involvement of any high-ranking police officials so as to cast doubt on the credibility of the investigation.

39. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, and particularly when the investigation stands completed and cognizance has already been taken by the competent court, this Court finds no justification to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct transfer of the investigation to a special agency.

40. It is also apposite to note that issues pertaining to the verification of law degrees and enrolment of advocates are already the subject matter of comprehensive directions issued by this Court in Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India and another ((2023) 6 SCC 144) as supplemented by order dated 18.11.2025 in M. Varadhan v. Union of India and another (WP(C) No. of 2023). Pursuant thereto, a High-Level Committee has been constituted and is functioning under the continuous monitoring of this Court. At the instance of the Bar Council of India, a nationwide verification process is presently underway with the active involvement of Universities and State Bar Councils. The regulatory framework and supervisory mechanism put in place by this Court, therefore, adequately address the concerns pertaining to forged degrees and fraudulent enrolments.

41. In view of the above, the prayer for transfer of investigation to a special agency is declined. It is, however, clarified that the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils shall continue to implement, in letter and spirit, the directions already issued by this Court and shall submit such progress reports as may be called for by this Court or by the High-Level Committee.

42. It has been consistently emphasised by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial 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.

43. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents before the High Court, both in the petition for quashing FIR as well as in successive bail applications. Even before this Court, only partial disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit, despite the existence of multiple criminal cases on record. 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.

44. This Court has, on numerous occasions, strongly deprecated such conduct. In Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha ((2024) 4 SCC 432), this Court disapproved the act of an accused who had concealed the dismissal of earlier bail applications as well as the pendency of proceedings before this Court, and issued specific directions mandating disclosure of all previous and pending bail applications. The Court reiterated that suppression of material facts constitutes fraud on the court, attracting the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi.

45. In Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319), this Court noticed the absence of even basic factual particulars in bail pleadings resulting in avoidable adjournments and unnecessary wastage of judicial time.

46. Further, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473), recommended that all High Courts consider incorporating specific rules mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents and involvement in other criminal cases at the bail stage. The Court observed that such disclosure requirements would ensure informed adjudication and prevent abuse of judicial process, and accordingly directed circulation of the judgment to the Registrars General of all High Courts for appropriate consideration.

47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined at multiple stages – from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately this Court – where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records. Non-disclosure of material aspects such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.

48. Thus, this Court is of the view that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication.

49. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the following illustrative disclosure framework is provided, which is purely recommendatory in nature, evolved in continuation of, and consonance with the principles laid down by this Court concerning full and candid disclosure in bail proceedings. The framework is intended to act as a facilitative guide, leaving it open to the concerned courts to adopt, adapt, or refine the same in accordance with their procedural framework and the exigencies of individual cases.

• (A) CASE DETAILS
  • FIR Number & Date
  • Police Station, District and State
  • Sections invoked
  • Maximum punishment prescribed
• (B) CUSTODY & PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
  • Date of Arrest
  • Total period of custody undergone
• (C) STATUS OF TRIAL
  • Stage of proceedings (Investigation / Chargesheet / Cognizance / Framing of charges / Trial)
  • Total number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet
  • Number of prosecution witnesses examined
• (D) CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS
  • FIR No. & Police Station
  • Sections
  • Status (Pending / Acquitted / Convicted)
• (E) PREVIOUS BAIL APPLICATIONS
  • Court
  • Case No.
  • Outcome of case
• (F) COERCIVE PROCESSES
  • Whether any Non-Bailable Warrant was issued
  • Whether declared a proclaimed offender

50. 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, consistent with their rule-making powers. A copy of this judgment shall also be circulated to the District Judiciary for guidance.

51. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 is cancelled. Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from today. In the event of failure to do so, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody. It is clarified that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial independently and conclude the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.

52. With the aforesaid observations, suggestions and directions, this criminal appeal is allowed.

53. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.