It is definitely a matter of utmost significance that the Supreme Court in a learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Zeba Khan vs State of UP & Others in Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12669 of 2025] that was pronounced most recently on February 11, 2026 while highlighting the integrity of the legal profession has set aside the bail granted to an accused who allegedly forged an LLB degree and projected himself as an advocate before courts holding unequivocally that the High Court’s order was “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. In addition, we see that the Apex Court laid down an illustrative and recommendatory disclosure framework to ensure full and candid transparency in bail proceedings. No doubt, the slew of guidelines which Apex Court has issued for mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications needs to be strictly implemented.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 22824 of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2, Mazahar Khan, in connection with FIR No. 314 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 (For short “IPC”).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the factual background envisages in para 3 that, “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.”
While elaborating further, the Bench then points out in para 4 that, “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.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “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.”
Further, the Bench then mentions in para 6 that, “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. 22824 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.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench notes in para 43 that, “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.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 47 noting that, “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.”
Most rationally, the Bench then propounds in para 48 holding precisely that, “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.”
Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 49 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “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
(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.”
Equally significant is what is then directed and held in para 50 that, “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.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then directs and holds succinctly in para 51 that, “Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 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.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 52 that, “With the aforesaid observations, suggestions and directions, this criminal appeal is allowed.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 53 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Sanjeev Sirohi,