Bombay High Court

KESARSINGH DHANSINGH JARWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Withdrawn

Holding

Non‑disclosure of criminal antecedents amounts to suppression of material facts, leading to dismissal of the anticipatory bail application as withdrawn, with liberty to re‑apply after one month.

Summary

The applicant, Kesarsingh Dhansingh Jarwal, filed an anticipatory bail application but was found to have suppressed his criminal antecedents. The court, noting this suppression, was reluctant to entertain the application and the applicant’s counsel sought permission to withdraw it and refile after disclosing the antecedents. Relying on the precedent set in Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026), the court affirmed that non‑disclosure of material facts constitutes suppression. While the court was inclined to allow the applicant to revive his request, it rejected the one‑week timeframe sought for re‑filing. Consequently, the application was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh application after a period of one month.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is obligated to disclose his criminal antecedents in an anticipatory bail application
Whether non‑disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts
Whether the applicant may withdraw the application and re‑file after a specified period

Subjects

anticipatory bail
suppression of material facts
criminal antecedents
withdrawal of application
procedural liberty

Judgment

                                   -1-
                                                        aba1591.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     924 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1591 OF 2026

Kesarsingh Dhansingh Jarwal                        ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                           …..Respondent

Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.

                                CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Since it was argued before this Court that the Applicant had

suppressed his criminal antecedents, this Court was disinclined to

entertain the application.     In view thereof, learned Counsel for the

Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application, with liberty to

prefer fresh application by disclosing antecedents of the applicant

within a period of one week.



2.    In view of judgment in case of Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & others in Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026, the position of

law is clear to the effect that it is the obligation of the applicant to

disclose   his   criminal   antecedents,   and   non-disclosure   thereof

amounts to suppression of material facts.
                                 -2-
                                                       aba1591.26.odt



3.    Having regard to the same, though this Court is inclined to

permit the applicant to revive his request, the same cannot be

permitted within a period of one week, as sought.            Accordingly,

application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to

revive his request after a period of one month from today.



                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…