Supreme Court provides for illustrative disclosure framework in bail petition

                               

         A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R.Mahadevan of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cancelled the bail of Respondent no. 2, Mazahar Khan, a fake advocate, by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the Court had granted bail to him on the basis of suppressed fact that he had no criminal history except the present FIR ( Zeba Khan Vs State of UP and others)

        An FIR was lodged by complainant, Zeba Khan for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleging the existence of  a large scale organised scan and racket involving fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualification and academic certificates within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was also alleged that the respondent was falsely projecting as advocates and was appearing before the Supreme Court and various High courts.

        It was also alleged by complainant , Zeba khan that the Respondent neither took admission in any recognised law college nor appeared in any law examination. He allegedly fabricated and procure a forged Bachelor of Law degree issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh). And also upon verification, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University was not affiliated with Survodaya Group of Institutions and marksheets relied upon by Respondent Mazahar Khan was never issued by the University. It was also alleged that the Respondent was operating systematic racket for supplying fake academic qualifications.

The complainant/appellant in one of the contention has stated that Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed the existence of as many as nine FIRs registered against him in order to secure a favourable bail order. The allegations in these FIRs relate to serious offences including forgery, cheating, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, theft, trespass and rioting.  

        Whereas the respondent/accused defended that the Law degree was genuine and issued by Institute and that the complainant/informant who is sister-in-law had falsely implicated due to property dispute.

        Despite all the serious allegations the High Court granted bail to the Respondent by ignoring the material evidence available on record and proceeded on false, misleading and suppressed facts presented on behalf of the Respondent. The High Court also overlooked the fact that nine FIRs was lodged against him by different Universities from the State of Maharashtra and Karnataka on offences of forgery and facilitation of forged academic degree.

        The Supreme Court after hearing all the parties came to conclusion about the gravity of offences, Respondent has committed, set aside the order of High Court and directed him to surrender before jurisdictional Court within the period of two weeks and in the event of failure to do so, he shall be taken into custody by trial Court.

        So before coming to conclusion, the top Court referred to previous relevant decisions passed by it such as the case of Manik Madhukar Sarve and others vs. Vithal Damuji Meher and others (2024) 10 SCC 753 where in the relevant portion  says –

        “ It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. if there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order”

        The Supreme  Court referred the case of  Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv raj Singh @Lalla Babu and another (2012) 9 SCC 446,  to highlight that criminal anticedents cannot be ignored particularly where the nature of allegations and their societal impact are grave. The Court also clarified the while a history-sheeter is not disentitled to bail as a rule, antecedents constitute a significant factor in the exercise of judicial discretion.

 

        The principle laid down in a case Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar and another (2022) 4 SCC 497 emphasised that while personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is invaluable, courts must balance such liberty against the nature of the accusations, supporting material, criminal antecedents and the broader societal impact.

 

        “The allegations against Respondent no. 2 are thus not confined to an isolated instance of forgery but prima facie disclose systematic and organised course of conduct involving the fabrication, procurement and use of forged educational qualifications, particularly law degrees, which has a direct bearing on the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice”  – Bench said.

 

        The top Court thus reported the guiding principles in regard to disclosure of material facts in bail application in the instant case and several previous cases.

        The Hon’ble Court has always consistently  emphasised 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. Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.

        The top Court reiterated the case of  Kusha Duruka vs State of  Odisha (2024) 4 SCC 432 to say that suppression of material facts constitutes fraud on the Court, attracting maxim suppresio veri expression falsi.

        The Apex Court also quoted that the absence of factual particulars in bail pleadings results in adjournments and unnecessary wastage of judicial time, in reference to case Munnesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) SCC.

        Further the Apex  Court referred to Kaushal Singh vs. State of  Rajasthan (2025) SCC where it was recommended that all the High Courts consider incorporating specific rules mandating the disclosure of criminal antecedents and involvement in other criminal cases at the bail stage. The Court observed that such disclosure requirements would ensure informed adjudication and  prevent abuse of judicial process, and accordingly directed circulation of the judgment to the Registrar General of all High Courts for appropriate consideration.

        The top Court was also of the view that since bail  applications are examined from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately  to Supreme Court , non-disclosure of material aspects   such as criminal and antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or conversely, the prolonged incarceration of the accused  persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.

        Therefore it is very important 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 Court said.

        Also in the instant case, the top Court provided the illustrative disclosure framework for the interest of justice which is recommendatory in nature. It is intended to act as a facilitative guide to the concerned courts to adopt, adapt, or refine the same in accordance with the procedural framework – the Court added.

        Such illustrative disclosure framework as provided by the Court :-

1.       Case details such as FIR number, dates, police station, Section invoked and maximum punishment prescribed.

2.       Custody and procedural compliance like date of arrest and period of custody undergone.

3.       Status of trial such as stage of proceedings, total number of witnesses and number of prosecution witnesses examined.

4.       Criminal antecedents and the FIR  and police station, section and status, pending/ acquitted or convicted.

5.       Previous bail applications detailing Court, case number and outcome of case.

6.       Coercive processes, whether any non – bailable warrant was issued and whether declared a proclaimed offender.

          The Hon’ble directed the Registrar of the same Court to circulate the copy of judgment containing illustrative disclosure framework to the Registrar Generals of all the High courts and District Judiciary for guidance.