Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To 3 Persons Accused Of Obtaining Bar Enrolment Using Fake Degrees

Update: 2026-11-09 07:07 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

The Allahabad High Court recently granted interim anticipatory bail to 3 persons accused of obtaining enrolment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of allegedly forged educational degrees/qualifications.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla passed 3 separate orders on the anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused, observing that a prima facie case for granting interim anticipatory bail was made out in each matter.

Importantly, in the Shyam Singhal case, the Court took note of the applicant's contention that the alleged offence under Section 338 BNS (Section 467 IPC) was not made out, as the educational degree or marksheet in question could not be treated as a "valuable security".

The Court prima facie found merit in this argument. It also noted that the other offences alleged against him were not punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment in the event of conviction.

Briefly put, in this case, Singhal was accused of submitting a forged Bachelor of Arts certificate to obtain enrolment as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

The Bar Council's counsel submitted that Singhal had claimed to be a Bachelor of Arts graduate from Thiruvalluvar University, Tamil Nadu, but the University had informed the Council through written communication that his certificate was fake.

Opposing the plea, the Bar Council's counsel submitted that persons obtaining enrolment through falsification of records gave the entire legal profession a bad name.

Singhal's counsel, however, argued that even assuming that he had obtained enrolment on the basis of a forged marksheet or certificate, neither document could be considered a valuable security to attract Section 338 BNS.

In this regard, the Supreme Court's judgment in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra 1980, was relied upon.

It was further submitted that Singhal had already surrendered his certificate of practice and had never practiced or misused the enrolment granted to him by the Bar Council. It was also submitted that he had no criminal antecedents.

Accepting the submissions prima facie, the Court granted him interim anticipatory bail. The matter is now listed for November 16, 2026.

In the second case, Harish Chandra (65) was accused of obtaining enrolment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of a fake Law degree.

His counsel raised a similar contention that Section 338 BNS was not attracted, arguing that a Law degree could not be treated as a valuable security. The Court prima facie found the argument sound. It also took note of the applicant's age and said that a case for grant of interim anticipatory bail was made out.

The matter has been listed afresh on November 19 to enable the Bar Council's counsel to obtain necessary instructions.

In the third case, Ram Krishna Mishra was accused of obtaining a B.A.LL.B. degree from Glocal University, Saharanpur, on the basis of allegedly forged documents.

His counsel submitted that, although the degree was alleged to have been found forged upon verification, the marksheet and other documents remained unverified and had not actually been found to be forged. He also raised the contention that Section 338 BNS was not made out.

The Court, prima facie, accepted the grounds raised for interim protection. It also took note of the contention that the other offences did not entail imprisonment exceeding 7 years in the event of conviction.

Hence, it found that a case for grant of interim anticipatory bail was made out.

The matter has been listed afresh on November 25, 2026. The applicant was directed to serve a complete copy of the bail application, affidavit and annexures upon the Bar Council's counsel within 24 hours.

In all the three matters, the Court directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Station House Officer or Court.

The applicants were directed to make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; refrain from pressurizing or intimidating prosecution witnesses; and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

The Court further clarified that, in the event of breach of any of these conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.