Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail Order In Fake-Degree Racket; Bail Cancelled, Surrender Directed

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granting bail to Mazahar Khan in connection with FIR No. 314 of 2024 registered at Saray Khwaja Police Station, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The appeal was filed by the informant, Zeba Khan, challenging the High Court's grant of bail on the ground that material facts and antecedents had been suppressed and that the order was vitiated by non-application of mind.

The Court allowed the criminal appeal, held that the High Court's bail order was legally untenable and set it aside, and cancelled the bail. The judgment emphasised that while "personal liberty occupied a position of high constitutional value", an order granting bail was open to appellate scrutiny when it was arbitrary, perverse or founded on disputed material. The Court noted that an accused seeking bail owed the court full disclosure, observing 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." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Background
The FIR alleged a large-scale organised racket for fabrication and circulation of forged academic qualifications, in particular forged LL.B. degrees, and that the accused projected himself as an advocate and appeared before courts on the strength of forged credentials. The complainant alleged that Mazahar Khan procured a forged LL.B. degree and marksheets purportedly from Sarvodaya Group of Institutions affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, and used such documents to misrepresent his qualifications; the University informed investigators that the institution was not affiliated and had not issued the marksheet relied upon. The accused was arrested on 28.04.2025; bail before the Sessions Judge was denied, but the High Court later granted bail. The appellant contended that the High Court ignored official communications, treated an online downloaded marksheet as genuine despite its disclaimer, and failed to take into account multiple other FIRs and serious antecedents.

Respondent's counsel relied on general bail principles and submitted that bail was the rule and that no supervening circumstances warranted cancellation. The State supported the challenge to bail. The Supreme Court examined precedents and legal principles on appellate scrutiny of bail orders, non-disclosure of antecedents, and the grounds for interference. It found prima facie material showing systemic fabrication of degrees, multiple similar FIRs across States, communications from the University and the college denying affiliation or law courses, and that the accused had not made full disclosure of his antecedents before the High Court. The Court declined a request to transfer the investigation to a special agency, noting the investigation had culminated in a chargesheet and that no exceptional circumstances warranted central agency takeover. The Court directed that the accused surrender to the jurisdictional court within two weeks and that the trial court proceed independently and expeditiously. The appeal was allowed and the impugned bail order was set aside; ancillary prayers for change of investigating agency were refused. The Court also reiterated guidance that non-disclosure of material facts in bail pleadings amounted to an abuse of process.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12669 of 2025)
Case Title: Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): [Advocate(s) not mentioned in the judgment]
For the Respondent(s): [Advocate(s) not mentioned in the judgment]