Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday issued a set of directions to be operationalised through the High Courts to ensure that bail applications place essential, case-critical particulars on record, so that courts are not compelled to decide bail pleas on incomplete or selectively presented material.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan issued the directions while setting aside bail granted to an accused alleged to have procured a forged LL.B. degree and to have facilitated a wider network for the supply of fabricated educational credentials.

The Court indicated that bail applications should ordinarily disclose the following particulars:

(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

Also Read: Supreme Court Flags Pendency in NIA Cases; Issues Notice To Chief Secretaries Of 17 States/UTs

(C) Status of trial

• Stage of proceedings (Investigation / Chargesheet / Cognisance / 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 the case

(F) Coercive processes

• Whether any Non-Bailable Warrant was issued

• Whether declared a proclaimed offender

The Bench urged High Courts to issue appropriate administrative directions and/or incorporate suitable provisions in their respective rules (consistent with their rule-making powers) so that bail orders also reflect these details. The judgment is to be forwarded to the Registrars General of all High Courts and circulated to the district judiciary for guidance.

While cancelling bail, the Court noted the breadth of allegations and their systemic implications, observing:

"Allegations against the accused are not confined to an isolated incident of forgery but prima facie disclosed of systematic and organised course of conduct involving fabrication, procurement and use of educational qualifications particularly LLB degrees which has a direct bearing on the integrity of legal profession and the administration of justice"

The Court also recorded concerns of alleged post-bail conduct, including stalking and intimidation, and reiterated the institutional impact of alleged impersonation as a legal professional, stating:

"This Court earlier expressly cautioned the accused that any instance of coercing the appellant into withdrawing the proceedings would invite strict action. The existence of a family or a property dispute does not dilute the gravity of allegations of impersonation as a legal professional and the use of the credentials before courts which has serious public and institutional ramifications extending for beyond the private dispute"

On the prayer for an independent probe, the Bench declined to direct an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, noting that it found no reason to doubt the credibility of the police investigation on the material presented.

Also Read: Child Custody Disputes Demand Human Touch Over Technical Readings: Tripura High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Plea, Orders Minor Handed To Mother

The Bench held that at the bail stage—whether before the trial court, the High Court, or the Supreme Court—courts often have to form only a prima facie view on the basis of imperfect records. It cautioned that non-disclosure can lead to an unwarranted grant of bail or, conversely, to continued incarceration even where substantial custody has already been served. The Court held:

"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"

The case arose from a bail order of the Allahabad High Court in favour of Mazhar Khan, who faces allegations of obtaining a fake LL.B. degree from Sarvoday Group of Institutions, of circulating visiting cards purporting to reflect LL.B., LL.M., and PhD credentials, and of operating a racket for forged degrees.

Before the High Court, the accused claimed the LL.B. degree was genuine, denied running any racket, and attributed the criminal proceedings to a family/property dispute; it was also claimed that there was no criminal history and that the accused had been in custody since April 28, 2025. The State and the informant opposed bail, and the High Court granted bail, noting the absence of convincing material suggesting that evidence would be tampered with.

Case Title: Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others

Case No: SLP(Crl) No. 12669/2025

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan