Appeal
Appeal against bail granted by Hon’ble High Court
2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the 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, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2, Mazahar Khan, in connection with FIR No. 314 of 2024 registered at Police Station Saray Khwaja, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Factual Background
3. The prosecution case, as borne out from the record, is that FIR No. 314 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 was lodged by the complainant alleging the existence of a large-scale organised scam and racket involving fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualifications and academic certificates, particularly within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that under the said racket, individuals were falsely projecting themselves as advocates and were appearing before this Court as well as various High Courts.
4. The specific allegations against Respondent No. 2 are that he had been continuously residing in the State of Maharashtra for substantial periods, including between the years 2016 and 2019. During the said period, Respondent No. 2 neither took admission in any recognised law college in Uttar Pradesh nor appeared in any law examination. Despite this, he allegedly fabricated and procured a forged Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree and corresponding 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, Uttar Pradesh. It is further alleged that the said forged decree and marksheets were subsequently used by Respondent No. 2 to falsely project himself as a duly qualified advocate.
5. The complainant further alleged that upon verification, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, by letter dated 10.08.2024, categorically informed 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. It was also stated that Respondent No. 2 had been preparing, using and circulating such forged degrees and certificates not only for himself but also for others, thereby operating a systematic racket for supplying fake academic qualifications. In furtherance thereof, Respondent No. 2 allegedly printed and circulated visiting cards bearing the national emblem “Satyameva Jayate” falsely displaying multiple academic qualifications such as LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D., all purportedly obtained through fraudulent means. These acts were intended to lend legitimacy to Respondent No. 2, attract unsuspecting persons, and induce them into procuring forged degrees through him. The FIR records that these activities were not isolated but formed part of a larger criminal conspiracy involving several fake degree holders linked with Respondent No. 2.
Respondent 2 was granted bail by Hon’ble High Court
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 28.04.2025. His bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, vide order dated 12.05.2025. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22824 of 2025, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 30.07.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant / appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
Discussion and findings
11. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed before us.
Appellant seeks cancellation of bail which was granted without considering the serious criminal antecedents
12. In the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the bail granted by the High Court on the ground that the impugned order is manifestly perverse, legally untenable, and vitiated by non-application of mind. The High Court proceeded to grant bail by placing reliance on documents whose genuineness constitutes the very subject matter of the criminal prosecution, compounded by the suppression of material facts and serious criminal antecedents on the part of Respondent No. 2. Such an approach strikes at the very foundation of settled bail jurisprudence
Legal principles governing annulment / cancellation of bail
13. It is trite that while personal liberty occupies a position of high 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 discretion to grant bail, though wide, is structured by well-settled legal principles and is neither uncanalised nor unfettered.
Judgment references for principle regarding cancellation of bail
14. In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc, and Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince and another, this Court authoritatively clarified that cancellation of bail on account of post-bail misconduct stands on a fundamentally different footing from annulment of a bail order which is itself unjustified or legally unsustainable at its inception. An order granting bail is liable to be interfered with where it reveals reliance on irrelevant considerations, ignores relevant material, or suffers from perversity without the necessity of waiting for supervening circumstances.
15. In Manik Madhukar Sarve and others v. Vitthal Damuji Meher and others, in which, one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) was a member of the Bench, this Court set aside the grant of bail in appeal, holding that the discretion exercised by the High Court was vitiated. The Court comprehensively restated the parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction to grant bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, criminal antecedents, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses, the risk of abscondence, and the overall impact on society. The following paragraphs are pertinent:
“paras. 18 to 20”
16. Recently, in Salil Mahajan v. Avinash Kumar and another, this Court once again crystallised the distinction between an appeal against grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail. It was reiterated that in an appeal against grant of bail, the superior court is concerned with examining the legality, propriety, and correctness of the bail order itself, and not the subsequent conduct of the accused. Where the bail order suffers from perversity, illegality, non-consideration of relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence, impact on society, or criminal antecedents, interference is fully justified. The following observations are pertinent:
“7. At the outset, it is well settled by this Court that an appeal against the grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail are on different footing. The grounds for testing the legality of an order granting bail are well settled. Recently, in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690], this Court had summarized the position of law as follows:
“19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
[See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. We deem it appropriate to advert to the exposition of law, in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab [(2021) 15 SCC 518], where while setting aside the grant of anticipatory bail this Court observed:
“11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked.” (emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, a consistent and well settled doctrinal thread emerges from the aforesaid decisions: the power to grant bail, though discretionary, is subject to judicial discipline and appellate oversight. While personal liberty remains a cherished constitutional value, a bail order is liable to be interfered with where the exercise of discretion is perverse, illegal, or manifestly unjustified; where it is founded on irrelevant or extraneous considerations; or where material and relevant factors bearing on the grant of bail have been ignored.
Distinction between an appeal against a bail order and the cancellation of bail
18. Equally well-settled is the distinction between an appeal against an order granting bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail founded on postbail conduct or supervening circumstances. In an appeal against the grant of bail, the focus of judicial scrutiny is the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the bail order as it stood at the time of its grant. Where such an order is shown to suffer from non-application of mind, reliance on disputed or prima facie suspect material forming the subject-matter of trial, suppression or non-consideration of material facts, or disregard of binding legal principles, annulment of the bail order is not only permissible but warranted in order to avert a miscarriage of justice.
19. Accordingly, where a bail order is demonstrated to be legally untenable or fundamentally perverse, interference by the appellate court is not an exception, but a judicial imperative. Such interference does not trench upon the sanctity of personal liberty; rather, it subserves the rule of law by ensuring that discretionary relief is granted in conformity with settled legal standards and that the administration of criminal justice is not undermined by arbitrary or capricious orders.
Application to the present case
Already existing disputes between parties relating to ancestral and family property: 20. The criminal proceedings arise out of FIR No. 314 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 lodged by the complainant, who is related to Respondent No. 2 and is stated to be his sister-in-law. It is not in dispute that there are existing disputes between the parties relating to ancestral and family property, and that civil proceedings in that regard are pending.
Respondent 2/accused claim himself as possession of LL.B degree: 21. It is alleged in the FIR that Respondent No. 2 had been projecting himself as possessing a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree purportedly issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions, which was claimed to be affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Prosecution claims that the accused forged his LL.B degree: 22. According to the prosecution, the law degree and marksheet are forged and fabricated, and Respondent No. 2 deliberately relied upon such documents to falsely project himself as a law graduate. It is further alleged that on the strength of these forged credentials, he appeared before this Court and other Courts. The accusations extend beyond personal use and include allegations that Respondent No. 2 was actively involved in preparing, using and circulating forged degrees and certificates for others as well, thereby operating an organised racket facilitating fake educational qualifications. Thus, serious allegations have been made against Respondent No. 2.
High Court granted bail observing that the degree is genuine: 23. The High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 based on the submissions advanced on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the LL.B. degree was genuine and issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions and that the informant being his sister-in-law, had falsely implicated him due to an ongoing property dispute.
Materials placed on record contradicts the findings of the Hon’ble High Court: 24. However, the material placed on record prima facie contradicts these assertions. A communication dated 05.09.2024 issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, categorically states that Sarvodaya Group of Institutions was not affiliated with the University. Further, during investigation, the Investigating Officer received a communication dated 09.05.2025 from Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Mahavidyalaya, Mirganj, Jaunpur, clarifying that the institution had recognition only for seven Bachelor of Arts courses and did not conduct LL.B. classes.
Marksheet relied by the respondent.2-accused never issued by the University: 25. At this stage, the prosecution case stands fortified by the aforesaid categorical communications that the marksheet relied upon by Respondent No. 2 was never issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University and that the institution in question had no affiliation for imparting legal education. These materials go to the very root of the prosecution case and cannot be brushed aside as peripheral. Even otherwise, the disclaimer appearing on the marksheet downloaded by Respondent No. 2 clearly states that it cannot be treated as an original marksheet and ought to have alerted the High Court to exercise circumspection. There are further allegations that the website or portal reflecting the marksheet itself is forged, that the email ID appearing therein is common to websites of other institutions, that the mobile number provided is defunct, and that the website appears to be a mirror website of another University.
26. 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. The details of the criminal cases registered against Respondent No. 2 are as follows:
“details”
Criminal antecedents of the respondent no.2-accused
Multiple FIRs registered against the respondent.2-accused
27. The above tabulation demonstrates that multiple FIRs have been registered against Respondent No. 2 across different States alleging similar offences relating to educational fraud and forgery.
Judgments references regarding considering criminal antecedents of the accused
28. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, this Court underscored that criminal antecedents cannot be ignored, particularly where the nature of allegations and their societal impact are grave. The Court clarified that while a history-sheeter is not disentitled to bail as a rule, antecedents constitute a significant factor in the exercise of judicial discretion. The relevant passage reads as under:
“28. Coming to the nature of crime it is perceivable that two persons came on a motorcycle and kidnapped Bihari Lal and kept him in confinement for eight days. The role of the accused is clearly stated. It is apt to note that a historysheeter has a recorded past. The High Court, in toto, has ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is that the accused had spent seven months in custody. That may be one of the factors but that cannot be the whole and the sole factor in every case. It depends upon the nature of the offence, the manner in which it is committed and its impact on the society. We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked. In the case at hand, as the prosecution case unfolds, the accused did not want anyone to speak against his activities. He had sent two persons to kidnap Bihari Lal, who remained in confinement for eight days. The victim was tortured. Kidnapping, as an offence, is on the increase throughout the country. Sometimes it is dealt with formidable skill and sometimes with terror and sometimes with threat or brute force. The crime relating to kidnapping has taken many a contour. True it is, sometimes allegations are made that a guardian has kidnapped a child or a boy in love has kidnapped a girl. They do stand on a different footing. But kidnapping for ransom or for revenge or to spread terror or to establish authority are in a different realm altogether. In the present case the victim had been kidnapped under threat, confined and abused. The sole reason for kidnapping is because the victim had shown some courage to speak against the accused. This may be the purpose for sustaining of authority in the area by the accused and his criminal antecedents, speak eloquently in that regard. In his plea for bail the accused had stated that such offences had been registered because of political motivations but the range of offence and their alleged years of occurrence do not lend prima facie acceptance to the same. Thus, in the present case his criminal antecedents could not have been totally ignored.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. Similarly, in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, this Court set aside a bail order on the ground that relevant factors, including criminal antecedents, had been completely ignored, holding that such a grant of bail amounted to a deviant exercise of discretion warranting appellate interference. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightning having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order [Budhpal v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 14815]”
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. The principles reiterated by a three-Judge Bench in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and another9 further emphasise 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. Bail discretion must be exercised judiciously and supported by reasons grounded in the material on record. The following observations are apposite:
“paras. 21 and 35”
Respondent no.2-accused suppressed his criminal antecedents
31. Of particular concern in the present case is the prima facie material indicating that Respondent No. 2 suppressed his criminal antecedents before the High Court by stating that he had no criminal history except the present FIR. Such incorrect and incomplete disclosure appears to have materially influenced the exercise of discretion in his favour, thereby vitiating the bail order.
32. The submission that Respondent No. 2 has not misused liberty granted to him cannot be considered in isolation. There are prima facie allegations of stalking and intimidation of the appellant after the grant of bail. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2025, expressly cautioned Respondent No. 2 that any attempt to intimidate or coerce the appellant into withdrawing the proceedings would invite strict action. The existence of a family or property dispute does not dilute the gravity of allegations involving impersonation as a legal professional and the use of forged credentials before courts, which have serious public and institutional ramifications extending far beyond a private dispute.
Conclusion regarding bail order
Supreme Court set aside the order granting bail to respondent no.2-accused
33. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 granting bail to Respondent No. 2 is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Investigation by a special agency – Whether warranted
34. The appellant has further sought a direction for transfer of the investigation in the present case to a special agency, alleging the existence of a larger racket involving forged degrees and invoking considerations of public interest.
Present case cognizance was taken already: 35. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the investigation has already culminated in the filing of a chargesheet on 14.05.2025, and cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.05.2025.
36. In Disha v. State of Gujarat and others, this Court was concerned with allegations relating to a large-scale financial scam involving collection of approximately Rs. 60 crores on the pretext of assuring high returns. Despite the filing of the chargesheet, a prayer was made for transfer of investigation to an impartial agency such as the CBI. Rejecting the said prayer, this Court held that once investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed, transfer of investigation can be directed only in exceptional circumstances demonstrating a real likelihood of bias, mala fides, or abuse of power. The following paragraphs are apposite:
“14. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India [(1992) 1 SCC 397] this Court however, held that the power of directing investigation by CBI after chargesheet was filed, should not ordinarily be used, but only when necessary. The investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this Court, ordinarily, to reopen the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a 31ummarized31 agency like CBI. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab [(1994) 1 SCC 616 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 455 : AIR 1994 SC 1023].
15. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248: AIR 1994 SC 38] this Court examined the case where the accusations were directed against the local police personnel. The Court held that it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like CBI so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency was looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same would lack credibility since the allegations were against them.
16. This Court refused to direct the investigation by CBI, after the charge-sheet was filed in Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 264 : AIR 1996 SC 3386].
17. In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made out and a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court which will then deal with that case on merits in accordance with law. (See Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1998) 8 SCC 661 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 84].)
21. Thus, it is evident that this Court has transferred the matter to CBI or any other special agency only when the Court was satisfied that the accused had been a very powerful and influential person or State authorities like high police officials were involved and the investigation had not been proceeded with in a proper direction or it had been biased. In such a case, in order to do complete justice and having belief that it would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility, such directions have been issued.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Nothing in record placed that the State police was malafied or bias in its investigation
38. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, no specific or substantiated material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the investigation conducted by the State Police was vitiated by mala fides, bias, or extraneous influence attributable to Respondent No. 2. There is also no allegation of involvement of any high-ranking police officials so as to cast doubt on the credibility of the investigation.
No necessary to transfer investigation to special agency
39. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, and particularly when the investigation stands completed and cognizance has already been taken by the competent court, this Court finds no justification to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct transfer of the investigation to a special agency.
Bar council of India conducting a nationwide verification process of advocates
40. It is also apposite to note that issues pertaining to the verification of law degrees and enrolment of advocates are already the subject matter of comprehensive directions issued by this Court in Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India and another as supplemented by order dated 18.11.2025 in M. Varadhan v. Union of India and another. Pursuant thereto, a High-Level Committee has been constituted and is functioning under the continuous monitoring of this Court. At the instance of the Bar Council of India, a nationwide verification process is presently underway with the active involvement of Universities and State Bar Councils. The regulatory framework and supervisory mechanism put in place by this Court, therefore, adequately address the concerns pertaining to forged degrees and fraudulent enrolments.
41. In view of the above, the prayer for transfer of investigation to a special agency is declined. It is, however, clarified that the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils shall continue to implement, in letter and spirit, the directions already issued by this Court and shall submit such progress reports as may be called for by this Court or by the High-Level Committee.
Disclosure of material facts in bail applications – guiding principles and suggestions
Accused seeking bail has obligation to make complete disclosure of all material facts
42. It has been consistently emphasised by this Court 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 an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.
Respondent no.2 in present case concealed his criminal antecedents
43. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents before the High Court, both in the petition for quashing FIR as well as in successive bail applications. Even before this Court, only partial disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit, despite the existence of multiple criminal cases on record. This conduct cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse but reflects a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts.
Doctrine of Suppression veri expression falsi
44. This Court has, on numerous occasions, strongly deprecated such conduct. In Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, this Court disapproved the act of an accused who had concealed the dismissal of earlier bail applications as well as the pendency of proceedings before this Court, and issued specific directions mandating disclosure of all previous and pending bail applications. The Court reiterated that suppression of material facts constitutes fraud on the court, attracting the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
“paras. 2 to 22”
45. In Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court noticed the absence of even basic factual particulars in bail pleadings resulting in avoidable adjournments and unnecessary wastage of judicial time.
47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined at multiple stages – from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately this Court – where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records. Non-disclosure of material aspects such as criminal 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 accused persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.
Accused must disclose in his bail application including non-bailable warrants, declaration of proclaimed offender supported by affidavit
48. 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.
Framework for bail for courts to adapt the same with their procedural frameworks
49. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the following illustrative disclosure framework is provided, which is purely recommendatory in nature, evolved in continuation of, and consonance with the principles laid down by this Court concerning full and candid disclosure in bail proceedings. The framework is intended to act as a facilitative guide, leaving it open to the concerned courts to adopt, adapt, or refine the same in accordance with their procedural framework and the exigencies of individual cases.
(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
(C) STATUS OF TRIAL
• Stage of proceedings (Investigation / Chargesheet / Cognizance / 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 case (F) COERCIVE PROCESSES
• Whether any Non-Bailable Warrant was issued
• Whether declared a proclaimed offender
Direction to Registry to circulate a copy of this judgment
50. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. The High Courts may examine the feasibility of issuing appropriate administrative directions or incorporating suitable provisions in their respective Rules, consistent with their rule-making powers. A copy of this judgment shall also be circulated to the District Judiciary for guidance.
Conclusion
51. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 is cancelled. Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from today. In the event of failure to do so, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody. It is clarified that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial independently and conclude the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.
52. With the aforesaid observations, suggestions and directions, this criminal appeal is allowed.
Party
Zeba Khan vs. State of U.P. & Others - Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026, 2026 INSC 144 - February 11, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan.
