As per case facts, an FIR was lodged against Respondent No. 2 for fabricating law degrees, falsely projecting himself as an advocate, and operating an organized racket involving forged educational ... qualifications. Verification confirmed the degrees were forged, and the issuing institutions were unaffiliated or did not offer law courses. Respondent No. 2 suppressed multiple criminal antecedents, including similar fraud cases, and allegedly intimidated the appellant after bail. The State Bar Council debarred him. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court because the High Court granted bail ignoring these critical facts. The question arose whether a bail order granted without considering relevant factors, relying on suspect material, and with suppression of criminal antecedents is legally sustainable. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the bail, finding the High Court's Order perverse and vitiated by non-application of mind and suppression of material facts. It directed the Respondent to surrender and emphasized the mandatory full disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications, while declining to transfer the investigation to a special agency.