Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to Advocate in Marksheet Forgery Case, Citing 'Grave Fraud on Justice System'
The Allahabad High Court has firmly denied bail to an advocate accused of forging his Class 12 marksheet and using it to secure registration with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. In a strongly worded order, the court labeled this a case of "grave fraud on the justice system," emphasizing that such actions undermine the very foundation of the legal profession.
Court Cites Sanskrit Shloka 'Aachar Parmo Dharma' to Stress Integrity
Justice Krishan Pahal, presiding over the case, invoked the Sanskrit shloka "Aachar Parmo Dharma," which translates to "righteous conduct is the highest duty." The court stressed that an advocate, as an officer of the court, commits a severe fraud on the institution of justice by engaging in such illegality. This principle was central to the court's decision, highlighting the expectation of unwavering integrity from legal professionals.
In rejecting the bail application of advocate Ashish Shukla, Justice Pahal observed, "An advocate is not merely a professional engaged in litigation; he is a vital pillar in the administration of justice. For those upholding the law, their behaviour is more important than their words. The nobility of the legal profession rests upon unwavering integrity, honesty, and fidelity to the rule of law. The court cannot afford to show leniency in matters of this nature, for any misplaced sympathy would amount to compromising the sanctity and credibility of the legal profession."
Details of the Forgery and Legal Proceedings
The court noted that Shukla allegedly projected forged and fabricated educational documents to obtain his graduation and law degrees, as well as secure registration as an advocate. This involved serious offences under sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR against Shukla was lodged following a complaint by another advocate to the president of the Kanpur Bar Association. The complaint alleged that Shukla had forged his educational credentials to gain registration, and it was forwarded to the police commissioner with a recommendation to file an FIR. Shukla claimed to have passed his intermediate examination in 1994, but official records from the UP Board indicated he had failed. Despite repeated notices, he could not produce the Class 12 certificate, claiming it had been destroyed by termites—a claim the court rejected as implausible.
Court Rejects Applicant's Arguments and Notes Contradictions
In seeking bail, Shukla's counsel argued that only the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, not the bar association president, had the authority to verify educational credentials. He also alleged personal rivalry, suggesting the complaint was motivated by a case involving Shukla's father. However, the state's counsel opposed the bail plea, contending that Shukla had secured his registration based on forged documents, thereby endangering the lives and liberty of litigants.
The court dismissed Shukla's contention about termite damage, noting it was contradicted by the board's report confirming his failure in the examination. Additionally, the sessions judge in Kanpur had cancelled Shukla's anticipatory bail in November last year for non-compliance with conditions, including furnishing educational credentials. He was subsequently arrested in Nainital in December while on vacation.
This case underscores the high ethical standards expected in the legal profession and the judiciary's commitment to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. The denial of bail serves as a stern reminder that fraud and forgery will not be tolerated, especially when perpetrated by those sworn to uphold the law.
