The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on Thursday refused bail to a Kanpur-based advocate accused of forging his Class XII mark sheet to obtain law degrees and secure registration with the state Bar Council.
Justice Krishan Pahal, while rejecting the plea, made strong remarks on the standards expected from members of the legal profession. “An advocate is not merely a professional engaged in litigation; he is an officer of the Court,” the bench observed, stressing that integrity is the foundation of the justice system.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The case arises from FIR No. 89 of 2025 lodged at Kotwali Police Station, Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420 (cheating), 467, 468, and 471 (forgery-related offences) of the Indian Penal Code.
The complaint was initially moved by a fellow advocate before the Kanpur Bar Association. It alleged that Ashish Shukla had secured his registration as an advocate using forged educational documents, particularly by falsely claiming that he had passed his Class XII examination.
According to the prosecution, official records from the education board indicated that Shukla had failed the Class XII examination. Yet, he allegedly represented himself as having passed with 52% marks and went on to obtain graduation and law degrees on that basis .
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Defence Arguments
Senior counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the complaint itself was improperly forwarded to the police by the President of the Bar Association without following due procedure. It was contended that only the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was competent to verify educational credentials of an enrolled advocate.
The defence claimed that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and had provided all available documents. The Class XII mark sheet, counsel said, could not be furnished because it had been destroyed by termites. An e-complaint regarding the missing document was also filed.
It was further argued that most of the applicant’s previous criminal cases had ended in acquittal or closure, and that he had been falsely implicated due to professional rivalry.
Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court judgments concerning the nature of forgery offences and the requirement of supplying grounds of arrest.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Informant and State’s Stand
Opposing the bail plea, the informant’s counsel questioned the termite theory. “If termites destroyed one certificate, how did all other documents remain intact?” the argument ran.
The State submitted that official communication from the education board showed that the applicant had indeed failed in the Class XII examination. It was alleged that despite this, he declared himself as having passed and used fabricated documents to pursue higher education and secure Bar registration .
The prosecution argued that the applicant, being a practising advocate, had gained entry into the profession through deceit. “He is playing with the lives and liberty of innocent litigants,” the State contended.
Court’s Observations
The Court was not persuaded by the explanation that termites had selectively destroyed only the Class XII certificate. Justice Pahal noted that other educational records were admittedly intact, which made the defence doubtful at this stage .
In a significant remark, the bench referred to a Sanskrit verse meaning “Righteous conduct is the highest duty.” The judge emphasised that for those who uphold the law, conduct matters more than words.
“When an advocate himself resorts to illegality-more so by forging his own credentials to gain entry into the profession-it constitutes a grave and deliberate fraud upon the institution of justice,” the Court observed .
The Court said such allegations strike at the root of public confidence in the justice delivery system. It also noted that the applicant had failed to comply with specific conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail earlier.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Conviction After Finding Serious Gaps in Trial
Decision
After considering the material on record and the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that it was not a fit case for grant of bail.
“The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected,” the bench ruled .
However, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and decide the case as early as possible, subject to there being no legal impediment .
Case Title: Ashish Shukla vs State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3312 of 2026
Decision Date: February 6, 2026
