Bail — Annulment vs Cancellation — Distinction Reaffirmed (Paras 13–19) An appeal against grant of bail is distinct from cancellation of bail based on post-bail conduct. In an appeal against grant, the appellate court examines: Legality Propriety Sustainability of the bail order at inception Where bail is granted ignoring material evidence, criminal antecedents, or based on irrelevant considerations, annulment is justified without requiring supervening circumstances.

---

Bail — Annulment vs Cancellation — Distinction Reaffirmed

(Paras 13–19)

An appeal against grant of bail is distinct from cancellation of bail based on post-bail conduct.

In an appeal against grant, the appellate court examines:

• Legality

• Propriety

• Sustainability of the bail order at inception

Where bail is granted ignoring material evidence, criminal antecedents, or based on irrelevant considerations, annulment is justified without requiring supervening circumstances.

---

Bail — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Fraud on Court

(Paras 31, 42–44)

Suppression of criminal history in bail applications vitiates the order.

Deliberate concealment amounts to abuse of process and attracts the doctrine:

Suppressio veri, expressio falsi

Full and candid disclosure is mandatory.

---

Bail — Reliance on Disputed Documents — Improper Exercise of Discretion

(Paras 23–25)

Grant of bail based on documents whose genuineness is itself under investigation is perverse and legally untenable.

---

Criminal Antecedents — Relevance at Bail Stage

(Paras 26–30)

Criminal antecedents are a significant factor in bail adjudication, especially where allegations disclose:

• Organised criminal conduct

• Repeated similar offences

• Societal impact

Ignoring antecedents renders the bail order deviant and vulnerable to appellate interference.

---

Forged Educational Degrees — Impact on Legal Profession

(Paras 22, 26)

Forgery of law degrees and impersonation as advocate undermines:

• Public faith in the justice system

• Institutional integrity of courts

• Regulatory framework of legal profession

Such offences have broader societal ramifications.

---

Transfer of Investigation — Exceptional Circumstances Required

(Paras 34–41)

After filing of chargesheet and taking cognizance, transfer of investigation to special agency can be ordered only in rare and exceptional circumstances involving:

• Bias

• Mala fides

• Influence of high-ranking officials

• Credibility concerns

Mere allegations of larger racket insufficient.

---

Bail Pleadings — Mandatory Disclosure Framework Suggested

(Paras 49–50)

Supreme Court issued recommendatory disclosure framework covering:

• Case details

• Custody status

• Trial stage

• Criminal antecedents

• Previous bail applications

• Coercive processes

Directed circulation to all High Courts for possible rule incorporation.

---

FACTUAL MATRIX

---

FIR Details

FIR No. 314 of 2024
Registered at: PS Saray Khwaja, District Jaunpur, U.P.
Sections: 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC

Allegation: Large-scale organised racket involving forged law degrees and academic certificates.

---

Specific Allegations Against Respondent No. 2

Respondent allegedly:

• Fabricated LL.B. degree purportedly from Sarvodaya Group of Institutions

• Institution not affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University

• Circulated visiting cards bearing national emblem “Satyameva Jayate”

• Projected himself as advocate before courts

• Facilitated forged degrees for others

• Secured enrolment with Bar Council and SCBA membership

---

Criminal Antecedents

Nine FIRs across multiple States including:

• Karnataka

• Maharashtra

• Uttar Pradesh

Allegations include forgery, cheating, impersonation, intimidation, exam malpractice.

---

HIGH COURT ORDER

High Court granted bail primarily on:

• Claim that degree was genuine

• Family property dispute between parties

• Filing of chargesheet

Criminal antecedents allegedly suppressed.

---

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS

---

I. Doctrinal Clarification — Annulment vs Cancellation

The Court reiterated:

• Cancellation requires supervening circumstances.

• Annulment examines whether bail order was perverse at inception.

Here, scrutiny was of the bail order itself.

---

II. Non-Application of Mind by High Court

High Court failed to consider:

• University’s categorical denial of affiliation.

• Communication that institution did not offer LL.B.

• Disclaimer on downloaded marksheet.

• Multiple criminal cases pending.

• Suppression of antecedents.

Thus, bail order legally unsustainable.

---

III. Gravity of Offence

Court observed:

Forgery of law degree is not a private dispute but strikes at the integrity of justice system.

Societal impact significant.

---

IV. Suppression as Vitiating Factor

Respondent declared before High Court that he had no criminal history except present FIR.

This was factually incorrect.

Court held such suppression materially influenced grant of bail and vitiated discretion.

---

V. Transfer of Investigation — Rejected

Though larger racket alleged, Court declined transfer because:

• Chargesheet already filed.

• Cognizance taken.

• No material showing biased investigation.

• Verification of law degrees already under monitoring by Court in:

  • Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India

  • M. Varadhan v. Union of India

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A bail order granted ignoring material evidence and criminal antecedents is perverse and liable to be annulled in appeal.

2. Suppression of criminal history by accused vitiates bail discretion.

3. Courts cannot rely on documents under serious challenge as basis for bail.

4. Criminal antecedents are relevant and significant in bail adjudication.

5. Transfer of investigation after chargesheet requires exceptional circumstances.

6. Full and candid disclosure is a mandatory obligation in bail proceedings.