Prayagraj: Observing that it is a case of grave fraud on the justice system, the Allahabad high court has denied bail to an advocate accused of forging his Class 12 marksheet and getting himself registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh based on the said document.The court cited the Sanskrit shloka “Aachar Parmo Dharma”, emphasizing that righteous conduct is the highest duty. It stressed that an advocate, being an officer of the court, commits a grave fraud on the institution of justice if they engage in such illegality.Rejecting the bail application of one Ashish Shukla, Justice Krishan 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.““By projecting forged and fabricated educational documents, he not only obtained his graduation and law degrees but also secured registration as an advocate,” the court remarked. Stressing that the allegations relate to serious offences involving cheating and forgery, which strike at the very root of the legal profession and erode public confidence in the administration of justice, the court denied him bail in the order dated Jan 6.The applicant, a registered advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, approached the HC, seeking bail in a case 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 made by an advocate to the president of the Kanpur Bar Association, alleging that he had forged his educational credentials to secure his registration. The complaint was forwarded to the police commissioner with a recommendation to lodge an FIR.Shukla claimed to have passed his intermediate examination in 1994, but official records from the UP Board showed he had failed. Despite repeated notices, he could not produce the Class 12 certificate before the investigating officer (IO), claiming it had been destroyed by termites.The sessions judge, Kanpur, cancelled his anticipatory bail in Nov last year for failing to comply with the conditions, including furnishing his complete educational credentials before the investigating officer. In Dec last year, he was arrested in Nainital while on a vacation.Seeking bail in the case, the applicant’s counsel argued that the bar association president could not have lodged the complaint, as only the competent authority, namely the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, was empowered to verify the genuineness of his educational credentials. He also alleged that the bar association president was an interested party in the case, as he forwarded the complaint out of personal rivalry stemming from a case involving the applicant’s father.Opposing his bail plea, the state’s counsel contended that the applicant had secured his bar registration based on forged and fabricated documents and is thereby playing with the lives and liberty of innocent and helpless litigants. At the outset, the court rejected the applicant’s contention that the termite had selectively destroyed the Class 12 certificate. The bench also noted that his stance was contradicted by the report received from the board officials, which states that the applicant failed the examination.
