Bail by Concealment Is No Bail in Law: Supreme Court Cancels Relief in Alleged Fake LL.B. Degree Racket

“Interference Is Not an Exception, But a Judicial Imperative When Bail Order Is Perverse”, In a strongly worded and precedent-setting judgment, the Supreme Court of India on 11 February 2026, annulled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused allegedly involved in fabricating and circulating forged LL.B. degrees. The Bench comprising Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the High Court’s order was “legally untenable” and vitiated by “non-application of mind,” particularly in ignoring multiple criminal antecedents and relying upon documents which themselves form the subject matter of prosecution.

The Court made it unequivocally clear that where a bail order is founded on suppression of material facts or overlooks relevant considerations, “interference by the appellate court is not an exception, but a judicial imperative.”

The bail granted to Respondent No. 2, Mazahar Khan, has been cancelled and he has been directed to surrender within two weeks.

Allegations of Forged Law Degree and Organised Academic Fraud

The case arose from FIR No. 314 of 2024 registered at Police Station Saray Khwaja, Jaunpur, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The complainant alleged the existence of a “large-scale organised scam and racket” involving fabrication and circulation of forged academic certificates, particularly law degrees.

According to the prosecution, the accused claimed to have obtained an LL.B. degree from Sarvodaya Group of Institutions, purportedly affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University. However, by official communication dated 10.08.2024, the University categorically stated that the institution was not affiliated and that no such marksheet or degree had been issued. Further, Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya clarified that it did not even conduct LL.B. classes.

Despite these materials, the accused allegedly used the forged degree to project himself as an advocate, appeared before courts, and even secured membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The Sessions Court rejected bail. The High Court, however, granted bail on 30.07.2025, prompting the present appeal.

“Appellate Court Examines Legality of Bail at Inception” – Distinction Clarified

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed exposition of bail jurisprudence, distinguishing between cancellation of bail for post-bail misconduct and annulment of a bail order that is itself unsustainable from the outset.

The Court observed:

“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.”

Relying on decisions such as Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar, the Bench reiterated that if a bail order suffers from perversity, ignores relevant material, or relies on irrelevant considerations, it can be set aside without waiting for supervening circumstances.

The Court firmly stated:

“Where such an order is shown to suffer from non-application of mind, reliance on disputed material forming the subject-matter of trial, suppression of material facts, or disregard of binding principles, annulment of the bail order is not only permissible but warranted.”

Suppression of Nine FIRs – “Strikes at the Very Root of Administration of Criminal Justice”

A decisive factor in setting aside the bail was the suppression of criminal antecedents. The record revealed that as many as nine FIRs had been registered against the accused across different States, many alleging similar offences of forgery and cheating.

Yet, before the High Court, the accused projected that he had no criminal history except the present FIR.

The Supreme Court noted that such incomplete disclosure materially influenced the grant of bail and observed:

“Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.”

Invoking the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi, the Court cautioned that discretionary relief like bail cannot be secured through concealment.

The Bench remarked that this was not an isolated lapse but reflected “a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts.”

“Impersonation as Advocate Has Serious Institutional Ramifications”

Rejecting the argument that the FIR stemmed from a family property dispute, the Court held that the allegations transcended private animosity and implicated public interest.

The Bench observed that impersonation as a legal professional and use of forged law degrees before courts has “serious public and institutional ramifications extending far beyond a private dispute.”

The allegations, the Court noted, were not confined to personal misuse but prima facie disclosed a “systematic and organised course of conduct involving fabrication and circulation of forged educational qualifications.”

High Court’s Reliance on Disputed Marksheet Faulted

The High Court had relied on a downloaded marksheet from an online portal to conclude that the LL.B. degree was genuine. However, the Supreme Court found that the very genuineness of the marksheet was under challenge.

The Court noted:

“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.”

Further, categorical communications from the University and the institution denying affiliation were ignored. These materials, the Court held, “go to the very root of the prosecution case.”

Transfer to Special Agency Declined – No Exceptional Circumstances

The appellant had sought transfer of investigation to a special agency. However, the Supreme Court declined the request, noting that the investigation had culminated in filing of chargesheet and cognizance had been taken.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court held that transfer to CBI or a special agency is warranted only in “rare and exceptional cases” where investigation lacks credibility or involves high-ranking officials. No such circumstance was made out.

Structured Disclosure in Bail Applications – Supreme Court Suggests Reform

In an important systemic observation, the Court emphasized the necessity of full and candid disclosure in bail applications.

It reiterated that applicants must disclose criminal antecedents, prior bail applications, custody details, and existence of coercive processes such as non-bailable warrants or proclamation.

The Court observed:

“Bail applications are examined at multiple stages… Non-disclosure of material aspects may result in unwarranted grant of bail or prolonged incarceration. Transparency and integrity in bail adjudication are paramount.”

A recommendatory disclosure framework was suggested and the judgment directed to be circulated to all High Courts and District Judiciary for consideration of appropriate Rules.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender within two weeks. The trial court has been instructed to proceed expeditiously and independently.

The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that while personal liberty under Article 21 is sacrosanct, it cannot be protected at the cost of judicial integrity. As the Court made clear, “discretionary relief must be granted in conformity with settled legal standards,” and bail secured by suppression cannot survive appellate scrutiny.

Date of Decision: 11 February 2026