LAKHAN MOHAN WASWANI @ PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                 912-ABA-1652-2026.doc

Harish

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1652 OF 2026
Lakhan Mohan Waswani @ Patil                         ...Applicant
             V/s.
State Of Maharashtra                                 ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. D. S. Pagare, for the Applicant.
Mr. Bapu Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
________________________________________________________
                    CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                    DATE   : 10TH JULY, 2026.


P.C. :-


1.            Heard learned advocate Mr. D. S. Pagare for the

applicant, as well as advocate Mr. Bapu Holambe Patil learned APP

for the State.


2.            The applicant has filed the instant application under

section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for seeking

pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 54 of 2026 registered with

Ulhasnagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under



                                  1/5
                                                912-ABA-1652-2026.doc

Sections 109, 352, 351(2), 55 & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 read with Section 4 & 25 of Arms Act, 1959 read with

Sections 37(1) & 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.


3.          The gist of prosecution case is that on 6 th February,

2026 at about 00.45 hours near the building of R. K. Pandey,

when the complainant had gone to drop his cousin brother Mr.

Amit at his house, at that time the present applicant along with

Mr. Prabhuraj alias Bapu Patil, Roopraj Patil & Santoshi Raja Patil

had attacked the applicant on account of their previous fight, and

assaulted the complainant by sword on his left hand and cut his

fingres of hand. It is alleged in the FIR that Prabhuraj had

assaulted the complainant by means of sword and caused

grievous injury. At that time, Roopraj also assaulted Amit by

means of sword and grievously injured him. On the basis of these

allegations, the FIR came to be registered against this applicant

along with the three accused-persons.


4.          Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

applicant is a student and has been falsely implicated in the

instant offence and has prayed for pre-arrest bail mainly on

                                2/5
                                                912-ABA-1652-2026.doc

account of a permission for appearing in the examinations. It is

pointed out that on earlier occasions permission was granted to

the applicant for the purpose of attending to his examinations,

however, the application came to be rejected by the Sessions

Court.


5.          Learned APP for the respondent at the outset pointed

out that the instant application deserves to be rejected on account

of suppression of material facts, as the applicant has failed to

disclose the criminal antecedents which is mandated by the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zeba Khan

Vs. State of U.P., reported at 2026 SCC Online SC 188. Apart

from this, learned APP also points out that the applicant has

suppressed the earlier order passed by this Court in his

anticipatory bail application vide ABA No. 1192 of 2026 which

was withdrawn by the applicant on 5th May, 2026. It is submitted

that on account of suppression of these material facts the

application deserves to be rejected.


6.          On being confronted about the earlier order passed

by this Court in ABA No. 1192 of 2026 dated 5 th May, 2026,

                                3/5
                                                912-ABA-1652-2026.doc

learned counsel for the applicant states that the same is not

disclosed in the instant application, since the applicant has not

given him instructions in that regard. As regards the earlier

criminal antecedents he states that although the same were

revealed during pendency of the application before the Sessions

Court, the same are not mentioned in the application

inadvertently. Thus, it is clear that despite there being criminal

antecedents against the applicant in the nature of similar bodily

offences, the same are not disclosed in the instant application. It

is thus clear that the applicant has suppressed the criminal

antecedents and in view of the position of law as laid down by

the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zeba

Khan (referred supra) the instant application need not be

entertained.


          It is also crucial to note that the applicant has earlier

filed an anticipatory bail application before this Court vide ABA

No. 1192 of 2026 which was heard by this Court and when the

Court was not inclined, the applicant has withdrawn it as

recorded in order dated 5th May, 2026. The applicant has not

                                4/5
                                                 912-ABA-1652-2026.doc

disclosed this order in the instant application. As such, on

account of suppression of material facts the instant application

for anticipatory bail needs to be rejected.


7.          Perusal of order passed by the Sessions Court reveals

that the applicant has filed repeated anticipatory bail applications

and the application filed before the Sessions Court vide ABA No.

1078 of 2026 was the forth application which was rejected by

order dated 10th June, 2026. Thereafter, the applicant has

approached this Court by filing ABA No. 1192 of 2026 which

came to be withdrawn on 5 th May, 2026 and without there being

any change in circumstances, has filed the instant application on

19th June, 2026. As such, the instant application without any

change in circumstances and by suppressing material facts,

deserves to be rejected on this count alone.


8.          In view of the above, Anticipatory Bail Application is

rejected.


                                 (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)




                                 5/5