In a stern ruling aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the legal system, the Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to an accused allegedly linked to a multi-state fake law degree racket, holding that material facts were suppressed before the Allahabad High Court. The verdict not only revokes the relief earlier granted but also lays down strict disclosure norms for all future bail applicants, signalling zero tolerance for concealment when personal liberty is sought from courts.
The case arose from an FIR lodged in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging an organised operation involved in fabricating and circulating forged academic credentials, particularly law degrees. The accused, Mazahar Khan, was alleged to have projected himself as a law graduate using a degree purportedly issued by an institution affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University. However, both the university and the concerned college reportedly denied issuing any such qualification. Investigators further alleged that the forged credentials were used to obtain enrolment with the State Bar Council and even membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Although his bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, the Allahabad High Court later granted him relief after noting that the investigation had concluded and a chargesheet had been filed. The complainant challenged that order before the Supreme Court, alleging that the High Court had been misled due to non-disclosure of multiple pending criminal cases against the accused.
Justice R. Mahadevan, setting aside the High Court’s order, held that the allegations pointed to a “systematic and organised course of conduct” involving forged educational qualifications that directly impacted the administration of justice. The Court found that the accused had failed to disclose several prior FIRs, observing that such suppression “materially influenced the exercise of discretion” in granting bail. Stressing the duty of honesty in bail proceedings, the Bench cautioned that courts cannot permit “selective candour” when liberty is at stake.
It ruled that where a bail order is founded on incomplete disclosure or ignores vital material, appellate interference is not optional but necessary. Consequently, the bail granted to the accused was cancelled. However, the Court declined to transfer the investigation, noting that the chargesheet had already been filed and no exceptional grounds were made out.
Picture Source :