The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant bail to an advocate accused of forging his Class XII marksheet in order to secure registration with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The bench observed that when an advocate, who is regarded as an officer of the Court, indulges in such illegality, it amounts to a serious fraud on the institution of justice. The court underscored that for those entrusted with upholding the law, conduct is more significant than words, and that the dignity of the legal profession rests upon integrity, honesty, and adherence to the rule of law. It held that the court could not show leniency in such matters, as misplaced sympathy would undermine the sanctity and credibility of the profession.
The applicant, Ashish Shukla, was a registered advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and had sought bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which relate to cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using forged documents as genuine. The first information report was lodged following a complaint made by another advocate to the President of the Kanpur Bar Association, alleging that Shukla had submitted forged educational documents to obtain his registration. The Bar President forwarded the complaint to the police with a recommendation to register a case, leading to an investigation. During the investigation, discrepancies were found in Shukla’s claim that he had passed his Intermediate examination in 1994. Official records from the Uttar Pradesh Board indicated that he had failed the examination. Despite repeated notices issued by the investigating officer, Shukla failed to produce his Class XII certificates, stating that they were missing.
Earlier, a Sessions Judge had cancelled Shukla’s anticipatory bail because he did not comply with the conditions imposed, including furnishing complete educational credentials before the investigating officer. Subsequently, he was arrested in Nainital while on vacation. In his plea before the High Court, his counsel argued that the President of the Bar Association was not competent to lodge the complaint, contending that only the Bar Council had the authority to verify educational qualifications. It was also submitted that the complaint was motivated by personal rivalry involving the applicant’s father and that the association’s by-laws had not been followed while forwarding the complaint. The defence further argued that the arrest memo did not mention the grounds of arrest and only stated that a reward had been declared against him. Additionally, Shukla claimed that his Class XII documents had been destroyed by termites and therefore could not be produced.
Opposing the bail plea, the state argued that Shukla had secured his registration with the Bar on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, thereby endangering the interests of litigants. The High Court rejected the explanation that the Class XII certificate had been selectively destroyed by termites while other educational documents remained intact, finding the claim implausible. The bench referred to a report from board officials confirming that Shukla had failed the Class XII examination, which contradicted his representation of having passed it. The court held that the material on record prima facie established that he had failed the examination but had falsely claimed to have passed it and used forged educational documents to obtain his graduation and law degrees, eventually securing enrolment as an advocate.
The High Court also considered his failure to comply with the conditions of anticipatory bail as indicative of disregard for the judicial process. Taking into account the serious nature of the allegations, which involve cheating and forgery and strike at the foundation of the legal profession, the court concluded that he was not entitled to bail. Accordingly, his bail application was rejected.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.