In Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court laid down a six-head disclosure framework requiring bail applicants to disclose criminal antecedents, custody details, trial status, and coercive processes, supported by an affidavit. This explainer examines the framework, its implications for criminal practice, and provides a draft affidavit for practitioner use.
In February the Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others, addressed the persistent concern in criminal practice— the tendency of accused persons to suppress material facts while seeking bail.
The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered the judgment. While the immediate context of the judgment is the cancellation of bail granted to a man accused of forging law degrees and operating an organised racket in Uttar Pradesh, its lasting significance lies in the illustrative disclosure framework it lays down for bail proceedings at every tier of the judiciary.
The Bench held that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes, duly supported by an affidavit. This observation, read with the detailed framework the Court has recommended, warrants close attention from practitioners across the criminal bar.
The factual matrix that prompted the Court to intervene is instructive. An FIR was registered in August 2024 at Police Station Saray Khwaja, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging the existence of a large-scale organised racket involving the fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualifications and academic certificates.
The accused, Mazahar Khan, was alleged to have relied on a fake LL.B. degree purportedly issued by Sarvodaya Group of Institutions, claimed to be affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.
He had circulated visiting cards displaying degrees of LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D. and was stated to be running a racket for supplying forged degrees. The prosecution alleged that on the strength of these forged credentials, he appeared before the Supreme Court and other courts, and secured membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Official communications from the University and the institution confirmed that no such degree had been issued and that the institution lacked affiliation to impart legal education.
The accused was arrested in April 2025. The Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, rejected his bail application in May 2025, following which he moved the Allahabad High Court.
Also read: Grant of bail must rest on merits, not on monetary deposits, Supreme Court reiterates
Before the high court, the accused contended that his LL.B. degree was genuine, that there was no material to show he had supplied fake degrees to anyone, that the complaint was motivated by a family property dispute with the complainant (his sister-in-law), and that he had no criminal history.
The High Court granted bail on July 30, 2025, observing that there was no convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with evidence.
The complainant, Zeba Khan, challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court found that the accused had nine FIRs registered against him across different States, involving allegations of forgery, cheating, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, theft, and trespass.
Despite a specific direction issued by the Court on September 22, 2025 to file an affidavit disclosing his criminal antecedents, the accused disclosed only four of the nine FIRs.
In his quashing petition before the High Court, he had falsely asserted that he had no criminal antecedents.
In that petition, he described himself as a practising advocate of the Supreme Court; in his bail application before the same court, he contradictorily stated that he does not practise as an advocate, thereby approbating and reprobating to suit his convenience.
The State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, after notice from the Supreme Court, removed his enrolment and debarred him from practice. The Bar Council of India, by order dated November 17, 2025, removed his name from its rolls and debarred him from appearing before any court.
The Court observed that the allegations were not confined to an isolated incident of forgery but prima facie disclosed a systematic and organised course of conduct involving the fabrication, procurement, and use of forged educational qualifications, with a direct bearing on the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.
On the question of post-bail conduct, the Court noted prima facie allegations of stalking and intimidation of the complainant and held that the existence of a family or property dispute does not dilute the gravity of allegations involving impersonation as a legal professional and the use of forged credentials before courts.
The Court declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI, finding no material to suggest that the State police investigation was vitiated by mala fides, bias, or extraneous influence, particularly since the chargesheet had already been filed.
The High Court’s bail order was set aside as “legally unsustainable” and vitiated by non-application of mind. The accused was directed to surrender within two weeks.
The obligation of full and candid disclosure
It is the Court’s observations on disclosure obligations in bail proceedings, however, that carry significance beyond the facts of this case.
The Bench noted that it has been consistently emphasised that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete, and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion.
The Court observed that, “any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.”
Referring to the practical difficulty faced by courts, the Bench noted that bail applications are examined at multiple stages, from the trial court to the High Court and the Supreme Court, and that courts are often constrained to form a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records.
Non-disclosure of material aspects such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result either in the unwarranted grant of bail or in the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite substantial custody having been undergone.
Suppression as fraud: the suppressio veri principle
The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024 SC), where it had disapproved the concealment of earlier bail applications and the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court, and had issued specific directions mandating disclosure.
The Court reiterated that suppression of material facts constitutes fraud on the court, attracting the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi.
The six-head disclosure framework
The disclosure framework laid down in the judgment covers six heads.
(A) Case Details: FIR number and date, police station, district and State, sections invoked, and maximum punishment prescribed.
(B) Custody & Procedural Compliance: Date of arrest and total period of custody undergone.
(C) Status of Trial: Current stage of proceedings (investigation, chargesheet, cognizance, framing of charges, or trial), total number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet, and the number of prosecution witnesses examined.
(D) Criminal Antecedents: Each previous FIR, the police station, the sections involved, and the status of each case (pending, acquitted, or convicted).
(E) Previous Bail Applications: The court before which each was filed, the case number, and the outcome.
(F) Coercive Processes: Whether any non-bailable warrant was issued, and whether the accused was declared a proclaimed offender.
The Court clarified that this framework is illustrative and recommendatory in nature. It directed the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate a copy of the judgment to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, with a recommendation that High Courts examine the feasibility of issuing appropriate administrative directions or incorporating suitable provisions in their respective rules, consistent with their rule-making powers. The judgment was also directed to be circulated to the district judiciary for guidance.
The Court clarified that this framework is “illustrative” and “purely recommendatory in nature.” It is not a statutory mandate, and subordinate courts are free to adopt or adapt the format in accordance with their procedural requirements and case-specific circumstances. However, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the judgment to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, with a recommendation that they examine the feasibility of issuing appropriate administrative directions or incorporating suitable provisions in their respective rules. The judgment was also directed to be circulated to the district judiciary for guidance.
For practitioners, the distinction between “recommendatory” and “mandatory” is, in practical terms, narrow. A bail application that does not address these six heads now runs the risk of being treated as a case of non-disclosure, particularly when the opposing party or the court draws attention to the Zeba Khan framework. The prudent course for the criminal bar is to treat compliance as a standard requirement and to file a sworn affidavit covering each head with every bail application.
The distinction between bail cancellation and annulment of a perverse bail order
The Court also clarified a doctrinal point that is frequently conflated in practice. Cancellation of bail on account of post-release misconduct stands on a fundamentally different footing from the annulment of a bail order that is itself unjustified or legally unsustainable at its inception.
In the present case, the Court was not cancelling bail because of the accused’s subsequent conduct. It was annulling the bail order because the High Court had ignored relevant material, relied on documents whose genuineness was under challenge, and overlooked the accused’s criminal antecedents.
The Bench held that, “where a bail order is demonstrated to be legally untenable or fundamentally perverse, interference by the appellate court is not an exception, but a judicial imperative.”
To assist practitioners in incorporating this framework into their practice, here is the draft bail affidavit that attempts to mirror the six-point disclosure structure laid down in the judgment.
The affidavit is designed for use by the pairokar of the accused and can be adapted for any court, from the sessions court to the high court. The format for criminal antecedents and previous bail applications has been structured in tabular form to fully mirror the Court’s requirements. The draft affidavit is reproduced below.
DRAFT BAIL AFFIDAVIT (Based on the disclosure framework in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others, 2026 INSC 144)
IN THE COURT OF _______________________________________
SC No.: __________ / _____
IN THE MATTER OF:
_______________________________ …APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF _______) …RESPONDENT
FIR No.: __________ U/S: ______________________________ P.S.: ______________________________
AFFIDAVIT
I, ____________________________, S/o ____________________________, aged about ____ years, R/o _________________________________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the Pairokar of the accused in the above-noted case and is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and as such is competent to swear this affidavit.
2. CASE DETAILS
That the case details of the matter are as under:
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| FIR Number | ____________________ |
| Date of FIR | ____________________ |
| Police Station | ____________________ |
| District & State | ____________________ |
| Sections Invoked | ____________________ |
| Maximum Punishment | ____________________ |
3. CUSTODY & PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
That the accused was arrested on ____________ and has been in judicial custody for a total period of _____ days. That the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout the period of remand.
4. STATUS OF TRIAL
That the investigation is complete, and the Final Report/Charge Sheet was filed on ____________, and presently the matter is at the stage of _________________________ (investigation / chargesheet / cognizance / framing of charges / trial). That the total number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet is _____, and out of these, _____ witnesses have been examined till date.
5. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS
(Alternative A: Where the accused has no prior criminal record) That the accused has no prior criminal record and has never been involved in any other criminal case.
(Alternative B: Where the accused has previous cases) That the accused has the following previous cases:
| S. No. | FIR No. | Police Station, District & State | Sections Invoked | Status (Pending / Acquitted / Convicted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | ______ | __________________ | __________ | __________ |
| 2. | ______ | __________________ | __________ | __________ |
| 3. | ______ | __________________ | __________ | __________ |
6. PREVIOUS BAIL APPLICATIONS
That this is the _____ (First / Second / Third / etc.) regular bail application filed on behalf of the accused before this Hon’ble Court.
That the details of all previous bail applications are as under:
| S. No. | Court | Case No. | Date of Order | Outcome (Granted / Rejected / Withdrawn) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | __________ | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| 2. | __________ | __________ | __________ | __________ |
(If no previous bail application has been filed, state: “That no previous bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused in any court.”)
7. COERCIVE PROCESSES
That no Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) were ever issued against the accused, nor has the accused ever been declared a Proclaimed Offender (P.O.) in the present case or any other proceedings.
(If NBW has been issued or accused declared P.O., state the relevant details.)
8. That the affidavit has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, and the contents of the affidavit have been read over to me in vernacular language, i.e., ___________.
9. That the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT (Signature)
VERIFICATION
Verified at ____________ on this ___ day of __________, 20__, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT (Signature)
Disclaimer: This is intended solely for general information and educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal practitioner before acting on any information contained herein. LawCurate and the author disclaim all liability for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this content.
Case title: Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (2026 SC)
Leave a Reply