The Allahabad High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to Shyam Singhal, who is accused of allegedly submitting a forged graduation certificate to obtain enrolment as an advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that the applicant had raised a prima facie arguable point regarding whether a marksheet could be treated as a valuable security for the purpose of the alleged forgery offence. The Court, however, deferred final consideration of the anticipatory bail application until the State submits its instructions.
Background
The FIR was registered following an earlier order passed by the High Court in a petition under Article 227. The allegations concern the submission of a purported Bachelor of Arts degree from Thiruvalluvar University, Tamil Nadu, for obtaining enrolment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The Bar Council informed the Court that the University had communicated that the applicant's marksheet was fake and had not verified the educational certificate.
Singhal's counsel argued that he had already surrendered his certificate of practice, had never practised as an advocate or misused his enrolment, and had no criminal antecedents.
The Court considered the applicant's argument that a marksheet could not be treated as valuable security to attract the relevant forgery provision. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra (1980).
In its order, the Court observed:
"The applicant has already surrendered his certificate of practice. Prima facie, from the material produced before this Court, it appears that a certificate issued by Thiruvalluvar University, Tamil Nadu, is said to have been forged by the applicant for obtaining enrollment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The marks-sheet is not a valuable security and reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 551. Prima facie, the argument of the applicant appears to be sound."
The Court further noted that the other alleged offences carried punishments of not more than seven years upon conviction. It found a prima facie case for anticipatory bail but considered it appropriate to await instructions from the State.
The High Court listed the matter for fresh hearing on November 16, 2026, directing the Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions.
Meanwhile, the Court ordered that if Singhal is arrested in the case, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety. He must cooperate with interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses and obtain prior court permission before leaving India.
The prosecution may seek cancellation if the conditions are violated.
