SCBA Member’s Fake LLB Degree: Apex Court Cancels Bail, Scam Exposed

2026 INSC 144: Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. – Supreme Court Cancels Bail for Forgery Accused

Fake LLB Degree, Nine FIRs Suppressed: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Supreme Court Bar Association Member

despite the degree being prima facie found to be forged, Respondent No. 2 clandestinely appeared before this Court and managed to secure membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association, thereby continuing his misrepresentation.

Appeal Against Grant of Bail vs. Cancellation of Bail: Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court order granting bail to an accused in a case involving a large-scale racket of forged educational qualifications, particularly law degrees. The appeal was filed by the original complainant against the grant of bail to Respondent No. 2, who was accused of fabricating a Bachelor of Laws degree to falsely project himself as an advocate and gain membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The prosecution case originated from an FIR alleging an organised scam involving the fabrication and circulation of forged legal certificates. The specific allegation against Respondent No. 2 was that he procured a forged LL.B. degree and marksheets purportedly issued by an institution claiming affiliation with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Official communications from the university categorically stated that the institution was not affiliated with it and that the marksheet in question was never issued by the university. The institution itself confirmed it did not offer any law course whatsoever. Despite these material contradictions, the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2, relying partly on a downloaded copy of the marksheet which contained a clear disclaimer that it could not be treated as an original document.

The complainant challenged the bail order on multiple grounds. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed the existence of nine other FIRs registered against him across different states, involving offences such as forgery, cheating, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and rioting. In his bail application before the High Court, Respondent No. 2 falsely stated that he had no criminal antecedents except the present case. Even before the Supreme Court, despite a specific direction for disclosure, he disclosed only four out of the nine FIRs in his counter-affidavit. This pattern of suppression was held to be a fraud played upon the court, attracting the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi.

Further aggravating circumstances were brought to light after the grant of bail. It was alleged that Respondent No. 2 intimidated and stalked the appellant to force the withdrawal of the proceedings. He secured admission into an LL.M. programme at another university using the same forged LL.B. degree. The State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa subsequently removed his enrolment and debarred him from practice. The Bombay High Court made scathing observations against him, noting his deliberate non-compliance with judicial orders and describing him as a person of criminal turpitude with no respect for the rule of law.

The Supreme Court extensively reviewed the legal principles governing appeals against grant of bail. It reiterated that while personal liberty is a cherished 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 Court drew a clear distinction between an appeal against grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail on the basis of supervening circumstances. In an appeal against grant of bail, the focus remains on the legality, propriety and sustainability of the bail order as it stood at the time of its grant. Interference is warranted where the order suffers from non-application of mind, reliance on disputed or suspect material, suppression of material facts, or disregard of binding legal principles.

Applying these principles, the Court found the impugned bail order legally unsustainable. The High Court had relied on documents whose genuineness constituted the very subject matter of the prosecution, while ignoring official communications from the university and the institution which prima facie established the forged nature of the degree. The disclaimer on the downloaded marksheet ought to have alerted the High Court to exercise circumspection. Additionally, the complete suppression of criminal antecedents by Respondent No. 2 materially influenced the exercise of discretion in his favour, vitiating the bail order.

The Court rejected the contention that Respondent No. 2 had not misused his liberty, noting prima facie allegations of intimidation of the appellant after grant of bail. It held that the existence of a family or property dispute between the parties did not dilute the gravity of allegations involving impersonation as a legal professional and use of forged credentials before courts, which have serious public and institutional ramifications.

The prayer for transfer of investigation to a special agency was declined on the ground that the investigation had already culminated in filing of a chargesheet and cognizance had been taken by the magistrate. In the absence of specific material demonstrating mala fides or bias attributable to the state police, no exceptional circumstances were made out to justify such transfer.

Significantly, the Court took note of the growing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts. It observed that an 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. Any suppression or concealment amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of justice.

In this context, the Court provided an illustrative disclosure framework for bail applications, purely recommendatory in nature, to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication. The suggested framework includes disclosure of case details, custody period, status of trial, complete criminal antecedents, details of previous bail applications, and existence of any coercive processes such as non-bailable warrants or proclamation as an offender. The Court directed the circulation of the judgment to all High Courts for consideration of incorporating suitable provisions in their respective rules.

The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 was accordingly cancelled with a direction to surrender within two weeks. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial independently and conclude it expeditiously. The appeal was allowed with these observations and directions.

2026 INSC 144
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12669 of 2025]
ZEBA KHAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

FEBRUARY 11, 2026