In an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a First Information Report (FIR) dated 23-11-2025 under Section 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the allegations against the applicant were serious requiring an in-depth investigation to reveal the network working to facilitate fake registrations and denied to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Bar Council of Delhi (respondent 2) (BCD) had written a letter dated 08-10-2025, as well as on 18-11-2025, to the SHO for registration of an FIR against the applicant, who had enrolled himself with the BCD fraudulently based on a fake LL.B. degree and marksheet. The applicant’s license to practice as an advocate was suspended, and the matter was sent to the Bar Council of India so that his name could be removed from the rolls of the BCD. It was also mentioned that during the removal proceedings, the applicant made serious allegations against one employee of the BCD and another advocate.
The resolution passed by the General House of the Bar Council of India accepted in totality the Report submitted by the Committee in the removal proceedings of the applicant, and also recorded serious allegations against the BCD employee to the effect that he had accepted substantial sums of money from the applicant to facilitate his enrolment. It was also mentioned that said actions were carried out in collusion with the above-mentioned advocate.
The applicant submitted that he had contacted the advocate, who asked him to come to Delhi with the necessary documents and introduced him to the BCD employee, who collected the certificates and obtained his signature on a blank registration form and ten other blank sheets. On 18-09-2025, the applicant received a message from BCD regarding the suspension of his license as his documents were found to be forged.
On 10-10-2025, the applicant himself filed a complaint against the BCD employee and the advocate who illegally misused the original certificates of the petitioner. The applicant also submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge had granted an anticipatory bail to the BCD employee.
The BCD sent a notice directing the appellant to appear at Hauz Khaz Police Station, but the applicant requested the grant of any other date since he was facing Grade-I Diastolic Dysfunction and his re-checkup was already scheduled. Thereafter, the applicant filed an anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, South Saket Court, New Delhi, which was dismissed by an order dated 15-12-2025.
The applicant contended that the FIR against him was untenable since there was no material evidence to show that he was involved in the fraudulent activity. The Bar Council of India gave the applicant a chance to explain himself on 13-11-2025, but the hearing was postponed since the Committee had failed to assemble on the said date. Without any enquiry, the applicant passed the order dated 17-11-2025 and circulated it in the Press.
The Court noted that the applicant was a resident of Villupuram but had sought his registration in BCD by submitting a rent deed to establish his residence, which was found to be forged. It was noted that the applicant himself agreed not to have studied at Bundelkhand University. The Court stated that his statement regarding giving his documents and signing the blank papers reflected his complicity in the entire racket of getting a registration in the BCD on fake documents. The Court found his direct complicity to be prima facie made out.
The Court stated that it is the duty of every genuine Advocate of the country to ensure cooperation with the Bar Council of India, which seeks to ensure that the certificate of practice is duly verified, together with the underlying educational degree certificates. It was said that unless the exercise is carried out periodically, there is a danger that the administration of justice would be under a serious cloud.
Further, the Court stated that possessing a valid degree from a recognised college to get enrolled in the Bar for practising as a Counsel is of utmost importance and that the enrolment of advocates based on fake certificates not only impacts individual cases, but has a deleterious effect on the entire justice delivery system.
The Court said that the allegations against the appellant were serious and that an in—depth investigation was required to unearth the complete network working to facilitate such registrations. Thus, the Court held that the present case is not one to grant an anticipatory bail.
Hence, the application was dismissed and disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. K. Rajan, Mr. Kartik Chettiar
For Respondents – Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Sidharth.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj, Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Amit Gupta, Ms. Yamini Singh and Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Advocates for Bar Council of Delhi.
