9 hidden FIRs, fake LLB: Why Supreme Court cancelled bail of ‘advocate’ in fake degree racket case

Suppression of criminal antecedents

• Of particular concern in the present case is the prima facie material indicating that Mazahar Khan suppressed his criminal antecedents before the high court.
• He stated that he had no criminal history, barring the present First Information Report (FIR).
• Such incorrect and incomplete disclosure appears to have materially influenced the exercise of discretion in his favour, vitiating the bail order.
• The submission that he has not misused the liberty granted to him cannot be considered in isolation.
• There are prima facie allegations of “stalking and intimidation” of the appellant (Zeba Khan) after the grant of bail.
• This court, through an order dated September 22, 2025, expressly cautioned Mazahar 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.
• The use of forged credentials before courts has serious public and institutional ramifications extending far beyond a private dispute.

Final outcome

• The record showed that as many as nine FIRs had been registered against the accused over the years, including cases alleging forgery, cheating, criminal intimidation, rioting, and other offences.
• Some of these FIRs date back to 2011.
• Yet, in his bail application before the high court, the accused allegedly projected himself as having no criminal history except the present case.
• Setting aside the high court’s order, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused.

Court’s guidelines: Mandatory disclosure in bail plea

• Noting a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons suppressing material facts to secure discretionary relief, the court laid down guiding principles.
• The principles state that every bail applicant must disclose all criminal antecedents.
• All pending FIRs and criminal proceedings must be revealed.
• Any coercive process, such as non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings, must be disclosed.
• Previous bail applications and their outcomes must be stated.
• The disclosure must be supported by a sworn affidavit.
• The court stressed that suppression of material facts amounts to abuse of the judicial process and may even attract consequences for fraud upon the court.
• Quoting earlier precedents, the bench reiterated that a litigant who approaches a court must do so with clean hands.
• The judicial system, it said, cannot permit “selective candour” when liberty is at stake.

Larger concern: Integrity of legal system

• Where the bail order suffers from perversity, illegality, or non-consideration of relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence, impact on society, or criminal antecedents, interference is fully justified.
• 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.
• Interference is warranted wherever it is founded on irrelevant or extraneous considerations or where material and relevant factors bearing on the grant of bail have been ignored.
• 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 infringe 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.
• The administration of criminal justice is not undermined by arbitrary or capricious orders.
• 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.
• “Uncanalised” refers to the granting of uncontrolled, unguided, or arbitrary power/discretion to an authority, often violating constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law.
• 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.

Background: FIR alleging organised academic fraud

• The case originated from an FIR registered on August 23, 2024, at Saray Khwaja police station in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.
• The complainant alleged the existence of a well-organised racket engaged in the fabrication and circulation of forged academic degrees, particularly law degrees.
• According to the prosecution, the accused claimed to have obtained an LLB degree from Sarvoday Group of Institutions, affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.
• However, in a communication dated August 10, 2024, the university informed authorities that the institution was not affiliated to it and that no such marksheet had ever been issued.
• During investigation, Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya also clarified that it did not offer any LLB course.
• The prosecution further alleged that the accused had not only used the forged degree to project himself as a qualified advocate, but had also appeared before courts and secured enrolment with the State Bar Council and membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
• The allegations extended beyond personal use, suggesting that he was involved in facilitating forged degrees for others as part of a systematic enterprise.

Arrest, bail, appeal

• The accused was arrested on April 28, 2025.
• His bail plea was rejected by the sessions court in Jaunpur on May 12, 2025.
• However, the Allahabad High Court granted him bail on July 30, 2025, after noting that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed.
• Aggrieved by this order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court had been misled by suppressed facts and that crucial material had not been considered.

Bail jurisprudence: annulment versus cancellation

• The Supreme Court carefully distinguished between two legal concepts: cancellation of bail due to post-release misconduct, and annulment of a bail order that was flawed from the outset.
• Here, the court clarified, it was not concerned merely with whether the accused had misused liberty after being granted bail.
• Instead, it examined whether the high court’s order itself suffered from perversity or non-application of mind.
• The Supreme Court held that the high court had relied upon documents such as an online marksheet printout, the authenticity of which was itself under serious challenge in the criminal case.
• The downloaded marksheet even carried a disclaimer stating that it could not be treated as an original document.
• At the same time, the high court failed to adequately consider official communications from the university and the institution categorically denying issuance of any LLB degree to the accused.
• In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the bail order could not stand.

No transfer of investigation

• The complainant had also sought transfer of the investigation to a specialised agency, citing the alleged larger fake degree racket.
• However, the Supreme Court declined this request, noting that the investigation had already been completed, a chargesheet filed on May 14, 2025, and cognisance taken by the trial court on May 26, 2025.
• The Supreme Court reiterated that transfer of investigation after filing of the chargesheet is permissible only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as demonstrated bias or involvement of high-ranking officials, which were not established here.