Zeba Khanv.State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Synopsis

This judgment arises from a criminal appeal filed by the complainant against an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused (Respondent No. 2) in a case involving an organised racket of forging law degrees and other academic qualifications. The Supreme Court cancels the bail, holding that the High Court’s order was vitiated by non‑application of mind, reliance on documents that are themselves the subject‑matter of the forgery allegations, and complete ignorance of the accused’s multiple criminal antecedents which were deliberately suppressed. The Court reaffirms the distinction between cancellation of bail for supervening misconduct and appellate annulment of a bail order that is perverse or illegal at its inception. It also lays down an illustrative disclosure framework mandating full and candid disclosure of criminal antecedents, previous bail applications, and coercive processes in every bail petition. While declining to transfer the investigation to a special agency (as chargesheet has been filed), the Court directs the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to consider incorporating such disclosure requirements into their respective rules.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 144 (Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12669 of 2025)

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of India

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan (Author) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Bench Strength: Division Bench (Two Judges)

Date of Judgment: February 11, 2026

Place: New Delhi

Impugned Order: Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 22824 of 2025

2. Legal Framework and Precedents

A. Statutes and Provisions Involved

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  Section 439 (special powers of High Court and Sessions Court regarding bail).
  The Court notes that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) retains the same substantive standards for bail.

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – referred to in some of the other FIRs against the accused (Sections 318, 319, 336, 340, 351, 352, 3(5), etc.).

• Maharashtra University, Board and other specified examinations (Prevention of Malpractices) Act, 1982 – invoked in FIR No. 232/2025.

• Bar Council of India Rules – relating to enrolment of advocates and verification of law degrees.

B. Precedents Relied Upon

Case Principle State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2024)Cancellation of bail for post‑bail misconduct is distinct from annulment of a bail order which is itself unjustified/illegal at inception.Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ PrinceReiterates the above distinction.Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher (2024)Comprehensive restatement of bail parameters: nature/gravity of accusation, role of accused, criminal antecedents, tampering risk, flight risk, societal impact.Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar (2025)Appeal against grant of bail tests the legality/propriety of the order itself; subsequent conduct is irrelevant for such appeal.Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla BabuCriminal antecedents cannot be ignored; while history‑sheeter is not disentitled to bail, antecedents are a significant factor.Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.Bail order ignoring criminal antecedents amounts to deviant exercise of discretion warranting interference.Brijmani Devi v. Pappu KumarBail discretion must balance personal liberty with nature of accusation, supporting material, antecedents, and societal impact.Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024)Suppression of material facts (previous bail applications, pendency) constitutes fraud on court; maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi applies.Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2023)Recommends High Courts to incorporate rules mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents at bail stage.Munnesh v. State of U.P.Noted lack of basic particulars in bail pleadings causing wastage of judicial time.Disha v. State of Gujarat (2011)Transfer of investigation to CBI after chargesheet filed only in exceptional circumstances; mere dissatisfaction insufficient.K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police (2013)Transfer of investigation to special agency requires rare/exceptional cases, e.g., involvement of high officials, bias, or tainted investigation.

C. Doctrinal Concepts Applied

• Perversity / Illegality of Bail Order: An order granting bail is liable to be set aside if it is based on irrelevant considerations, ignores relevant material, relies on documents that are themselves the subject‑matter of trial, or suffers from non‑application of mind.

• Suppression of Material Facts: Deliberate concealment of criminal antecedents or previous bail applications amounts to fraud on the court, vitiating the exercise of discretion.

• Distinction between Appeal and Cancellation: In an appeal against grant of bail, the focus is on the order itself; supervening misconduct is relevant for cancellation, not for annulment of an inherently unsustainable order.

• Jurisdictional Fact for Transfer of Investigation: Transfer to a special agency after filing of chargesheet is an extraordinary power exercisable only in rare and exceptional cases; bald allegations of improper investigation are insufficient.

3. Basic Relevant Facts

A. The Allegations in FIR No. 314/2024

• Date of FIR: 23.08.2024, Police Station Saray Khwaja, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.

• Complainant: Zeba Khan (appellant herein), stated to be the sister‑in‑law of Respondent No. 2 (accused, Mazahar Khan).

• Core Allegation: Existence of a large‑scale organised racket for fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualifications and academic certificates, particularly law degrees.

• Specific Allegations against Respondent No. 2:
  He resided in Maharashtra between 2016 and 2019, did not take admission in any recognised law college in U.P. nor appeared in any law examination.
  He fabricated and procured a forged LL.B. degree and marksheets bearing Enrolment/Roll No. PU‑16/6710273, purportedly issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions, claimed to be affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.
  He used these forged documents to falsely project himself as a duly qualified advocate, enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 26.06.2023 (Roll No. MAH/2493/2023), and obtained membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
  He printed and circulated visiting cards bearing the national emblem “Satyameva Jayate” and falsely claimed LL.B., LL.M., and Ph.D. degrees.
  He operated a systematic racket supplying fake academic qualifications to others.

B. Verification by Academic Authorities

• Letter dated 10.08.2024 from Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University:
  Categorically stated that Sarvodaya Group of Institutions was not affiliated with the University and that the marksheet relied upon by Respondent No. 2 was never issued by the University.

• Letter dated 09.05.2025 from Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya, Mirganj, Jaunpur:
  Clarified that the institution has recognition only for seven Bachelor of Arts courses and does not conduct LL.B. classes.

• Bar Council of India: List of 23 colleges affiliated with the University for law courses; Sarvodaya Group of Institutions is not included.

• Online marksheet downloaded by Respondent No. 2:
  Contained a disclaimer: “cannot be treated as an original marksheet”. Allegations also exist that the website/portal itself is forged and that the mobile number provided is defunct.

C. Criminal Antecedents of Respondent No. 2

• Total of nine (9) FIRs registered against Respondent No. 2 across Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh, involving offences of forgery, cheating, criminal intimidation, sexual harassment, theft, trespass, rioting, and offences under the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices Act, 1982, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

• Details of FIRs (summarised):
  FIR No. 8/2025, Bengaluru – u/s 34, 419, 420, 465 IPC (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 62/2025, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – u/s 318(4), 318(2), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) BNS (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 232/2025, Aurangabad Rural – u/s 318, 319(2), 3(5) BNS and Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices Act (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 314/2024, Jaunpur (present case) – bail granted by High Court, now set aside.
  FIR No. 136/2023, Aurangabad Rural – u/s 452, 379, 143, 147, 504, 506 IPC (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 124/2025, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – u/s 115(2), 3(5), 333, 351(3), 352 BNS (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 338/2016, Khultabad – u/s 354A, 504, 34 IPC (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 331/2011, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – u/s 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 472, 34 IPC (bail granted, pending).
  FIR No. 48/2011, Khultabad – u/s 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 34 IPC (acquitted, appeal pending).

• Respondent No. 2 suppressed all these antecedents before the High Court, stating that he had no criminal history except the present FIR. Even before the Supreme Court, only four FIRs were disclosed initially, and complete disclosure was made only after specific directions.

D. Procedural History

• 28.04.2025: Respondent No. 2 arrested.

• 12.05.2025: Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, rejected bail.

• 30.07.2025: High Court granted bail (impugned order).

• 14.05.2025: Chargesheet filed; cognizance taken on 26.05.2025.

• 17.11.2025: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa removed Respondent No. 2’s enrolment and debarred him from practice.

• Before Supreme Court: Appellant (complainant) challenged bail order and also sought transfer of investigation to a special agency.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the impugned order granting bail to Respondent No. 2 suffers from perversity, non-application of mind, and disregard of relevant material, thereby warranting annulment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution?

2. Whether deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents and pending cases by an accused seeking bail vitiates the exercise of judicial discretion, and if so, what are the consequences?

3. Whether the High Court, while granting bail, can rely upon documents whose genuineness is the very subject‑matter of the criminal prosecution and which contain explicit disclaimers?

4. Whether the investigation in the present case should be transferred to a specialised agency (e.g., CBI) in view of the alleged organised racket and public interest?

5. What procedural safeguards and disclosure norms ought to be mandated in bail applications to ensure informed adjudication and prevent abuse of process?

5. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail order, and issued comprehensive directions. The ratio can be distilled as follows:

1. Appellate Scrutiny of Bail Orders – Perversity/Illegality:
   An appeal against grant of bail is distinct from an application for cancellation of bail. In the former, the Court examines the legality, propriety, and correctness of the bail order as it stood at the time of its grant.
   Where the order is perverse, illegal, or manifestly unjust – e.g., based on irrelevant considerations, ignores relevant material, relies on documents that are themselves the subject of trial, or suffers from non‑application of mind – the appellate court must interfere, without waiting for supervening circumstances.
   Personal liberty under Article 21, though paramount, does not immunise a bail order from such scrutiny.

2. Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Fraud on Court:
   An applicant for bail is under a solemn obligation to make a full and candid disclosure of all material facts, including criminal antecedents, pending cases, and previous bail applications.
   Deliberate suppression constitutes fraud on the court, attracting the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi. Any order obtained by such suppression is vitiated and liable to be set aside.
   The court cannot be expected to act on incomplete or distorted facts; the integrity of judicial process demands utmost truthfulness from litigants.

3. Reliance on Disputed Documents – Impermissible at Bail Stage:
   While a detailed evaluation of evidence is not required at the bail stage, the court cannot act on documents whose authenticity is the very core of the prosecution case, especially when official communications from statutory authorities categorically deny their genuineness.
   A disclaimer on a downloaded marksheet (“not to be treated as original”) ought to have put the High Court on guard. Reliance on such material vitiates the exercise of discretion.

4. Criminal Antecedents – Mandatory Consideration:
   Criminal antecedents are a significant factor in bail adjudication. A history‑sheeter is not automatically disentitled to bail, but the court must record a reasoned satisfaction that despite the antecedents, bail is justified.
   Ignoring antecedents altogether or dismissing them as irrelevant amounts to a deviant exercise of discretion (Neeru Yadav).

5. Transfer of Investigation – Exceptional Power, Not Invoked Here:
   Once a chargesheet is filed and cognizance taken, transfer of investigation to a specialised agency (CBI) can be ordered only in rare and exceptional circumstances – e.g., involvement of high officials, bias, mala fides, or a tainted investigation.
   Mere allegations of an organised racket or dissatisfaction with the investigation do not meet this threshold.
   Moreover, the issue of forged law degrees is already under the monitoring of this Court in Ajay Shankar Srivastava and M. Varadhan, with a High‑Level Committee overseeing nationwide verification.

6. Mandatory Disclosure Framework for Bail Applications:
   To ensure uniformity, transparency, and integrity in bail adjudication, every bail application must contain an affidavit disclosing:
   Full details of the FIR (number, police station, sections, maximum punishment).
   Date of arrest and total custody undergone.
   Stage of trial and number of witnesses.
   Complete list of criminal antecedents – FIR number, police station, sections, status (pending/acquitted/convicted).
   Previous bail applications – court, case number, outcome.
   Coercive processes – whether any non‑bailable warrant issued, whether declared proclaimed offender.
   This framework is illustrative and recommendatory. High Courts are requested to consider incorporating suitable provisions in their respective rules.

6. Legal Framework Established / Clarified – What is New?

This judgment does not create new statutory law but authoritatively clarifies and strengthens several existing principles, particularly in the context of bail jurisprudence and procedural integrity:

1. Clear Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation – Reaffirmed with Greater Precision:
   While the distinction was already settled, the Court applies it rigorously: an appeal against grant of bail is not dependent on post‑bail misconduct; the intrinsic legality of the order is the sole touchstone. This empowers appellate courts to rectify manifest errors without waiting for the accused to misuse liberty.

2. Mandatory Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents – From Recommendation to Near‑Obligation:
   Building upon Kaushal Singh and Kusha Duruka, the Court elevates the requirement of full disclosure from a mere suggestion to an imperative duty of the applicant. The illustrative disclosure framework provides a ready template for High Courts and trial courts to adopt. This is a significant step towards standardising bail pleadings and preventing forum‑shopping.

3. Reliance on Documents with Disclaimer – Specific Caution:
   The judgment explicitly warns courts against relying on downloaded copies of academic certificates or marksheets that carry a disclaimer, especially when the prosecution alleges forgery. This adds a new layer of judicial caution at the bail stage.

4. Criminal Antecedents – Not Just a Factor, but a Decisive Factor in Appropriate Cases:
   The Court reiterates that ignoring antecedents is not merely an omission but a jurisdictional error rendering the order perverse. This strengthens the accountability of bail‑granting courts.

5. Transfer of Investigation – High Threshold Re‑emphasised in Context of Forged Degree Racket:
   Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Court refused to order transfer, thereby reining in the tendency to routinely seek CBI investigation after chargesheet. The judgment clarifies that the existing monitoring mechanism (Ajay Shankar Srivastava Committee) is sufficient.

6. Duty of Candour – Extends to Advocates:
   Quoting Saumya Chaurasia, the Court reminds advocates of their duty to diligently verify facts from the record. Suppression by the client cannot be passively transmitted to the court.

7. Supreme Court’s Examination and Analysis – A Step‑by‑Step Approach

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in a structured, layered manner:

A. Classification of the Proceeding – Appeal, Not Cancellation

• The Court first identifies the nature of the challenge: it is an appeal against the grant of bail, not an application for cancellation. Hence, the focus is on the correctness of the order at its inception, not on subsequent conduct.

• It cites Salil Mahajan, Manik Madhukar Sarve, and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan to anchor this distinction.

B. Scrutiny of the High Court’s Order – Perversity and Non‑Application of Mind

• The High Court relied on a downloaded marksheet to conclude that the degree was genuine.

• The Court juxtaposes this with:
  The categorical denial by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University (no affiliation, never issued marksheet).
  The categorical denial by Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya (no law course).
  The disclaimer on the marksheet itself.

• Held: Relying on such disputed and disclaimed material, while ignoring official communications, constitutes perversity and non‑application of mind.

C. Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Fraud on Court

• The Court notes that Respondent No. 2, in his bail application and quashing petition, falsely claimed no criminal antecedents except the present FIR.

• Even before the Supreme Court, only partial disclosure was made.

• The Court invokes the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi and cites Kusha Duruka, K.D. Sharma, Dalip Singh, and Moti Lal Songara to hold that such suppression vitiates the entire exercise of discretion.

D. Criminal Antecedents – Substantive Factor, Not Peripheral

• The Court emphasises that criminal antecedents are not merely a procedural formality; they are integral to the assessment of:
  Likelihood of committing further offences.
  Threat to witnesses.
  Societal impact.

• Citing Ash Mohammad, Neeru Yadav, and Brijmani Devi, the Court holds that ignoring antecedents altogether is a deviant exercise of discretion warranting interference.

E. Consideration of Post‑Bail Conduct – Not Necessary Here

• Although the appellant alleged stalking and intimidation after bail, the Court clarifies that such conduct is relevant for cancellation, not for annulling an order that was void ab initio due to suppression and perversity.

F. Prayer for Transfer of Investigation – Rejected

• The Court applies the exceptional circumstances test from Disha and K.V. Rajendran.

• Reasons for rejection:
  Chargesheet already filed; cognizance taken.
  No allegation of bias or mala fides against the investigating agency.
  No involvement of high police officials.
  The issue of forged degrees is already under this Court’s monitoring; the High‑Level Committee is functioning.

G. The Disclosure Framework – Prospective Guidance

• Recognising the recurring problem of suppression and incomplete pleadings, the Court formulates an illustrative checklist for bail applications.

• This is not a legislative exercise but a facilitative guideline to assist High Courts in framing rules.

• Directions for circulation to all High Courts and District Judiciary.

H. Final Directions

• Impugned bail order set aside.

• Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender within two weeks; failing which, trial court to take steps to secure custody.

• Trial to proceed expeditiously, unaffected by observations in this judgment.

• Copy of judgment to be circulated to Registrar Generals of all High Courts.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis

Strengths of the Judgment:

1. Doctrinal Rigour: The judgment meticulously distinguishes between appellate annulment and cancellation, preventing conflation and ensuring that orders obtained through suppression or perversity are not immunised by subsequent good conduct.

2. Procedural Accountability: By mandating full disclosure of antecedents and prior bail applications, the Court addresses a systemic flaw. The framework, though recommendatory, is likely to be adopted by High Courts, thereby institutionalising transparency in bail proceedings.

3. Practical Wisdom: The caution against relying on downloaded marksheets with disclaimers is a much‑needed reminder to trial and High Courts. It prevents the bail stage from being used to obtain de facto validation of disputed documents.

4. Balanced Approach on Transfer of Investigation: The refusal to order CBI investigation, despite the seriousness of the allegations, demonstrates judicial restraint and respect for the existing monitoring mechanism. It avoids duplication and over‑centralisation of investigations.

5. Emphasis on Candour: The strong observations on the duty of litigants and advocates to be truthful reinforce the ethical foundations of the legal profession.

Potential Concerns / Limitations:

1. Recommendatory, Not Mandatory: The disclosure framework is only “illustrative” and “recommendatory”. Unless High Courts incorporate it into their rules, its implementation may remain uneven. The Court could have issued a binding direction under Article 142, but chose a softer approach.

2. No Consequence for Suppression in This Case: Although the bail was cancelled, the judgment does not impose any costs or contempt proceedings on Respondent No. 2 for the deliberate suppression. Such a step could have served as a stronger deterrent.

3. No Specific Timeline for Trial: While the Court directed expeditious trial, it did not fix a specific timeline. Given the gravity and the accused’s history, a time‑bound schedule would have been appropriate.

4. Limited Guidance on Verification of Digital Documents: The judgment deals with a downloaded marksheet with a disclaimer, but does not provide general principles for evaluating digitally signed certificates or online verification portals that may be genuine. This could be addressed in future cases.

Overall Assessment:
The judgment is a significant and timely intervention that strengthens the integrity of bail adjudication. It corrects a manifest error in the High Court’s order, establishes clear norms for disclosure, and reaffirms that the process of granting bail is not a mere formality but a judicial function requiring diligent application of mind. It will serve as a precedent for countless bail applications across the country.

Final Outcome

1. Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 is allowed.

2. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 22824 of 2025 is set aside.

3. The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 (Mazahar Khan) is cancelled.

4. Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks from the date of the judgment. In case of failure, the trial court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody.

5. The trial court shall proceed with the trial independently and conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

6. The prayer for transfer of investigation to a special agency is declined.

7. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts for consideration of incorporating suitable disclosure provisions in their respective rules.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(MCQs)

1. In an appeal against an order granting bail, the appellate court’s primary focus is on?
a) The conduct of the accused after the grant of bail.
b) The legality, propriety, and correctness of the bail order at the time of its grant.
c) The possibility of the accused tampering with evidence in the future.
d) Whether the accused has been in custody for more than half the maximum sentence.

2. According to the Supreme Court in Zeba Khan, deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents by an accused in a bail application amounts to?
a) A mere procedural irregularity.
b) A valid ground for reduction of bail amount.
c) Fraud on the court, attracting the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi.
d) An irrelevant consideration.

3. Which of the following statements best reflects the Supreme Court’s direction regarding transfer of investigation to a specialised agency (e.g., CBI) after filing of chargesheet?
a) Transfer should be ordered in every case involving an organised racket.
b) Transfer can be ordered only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as bias or mala fides of the investigating agency.
c) Transfer must be ordered if the accused is a history‑sheeter.
d) Transfer cannot be ordered at all after cognizance is taken.

4. The illustrative disclosure framework for bail applications laid down in this judgment includes all of the following EXCEPT?
a) FIR number, police station, and sections invoked.
b) Total period of custody undergone.
c) Details of immovable property owned by the accused.
d) Criminal antecedents and previous bail applications.