Bombay High Court

BALKRISHNA DNYANOBA KHANDVE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 17 August 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed because the applicants did not disclose their criminal antecedents.

Summary

Balkrishna Dnyanoba Khandve and another applied for anticipatory bail, but neither appeared in court. The State of Maharashtra, through its counsel, pointed out that the applicants had undisclosed criminal antecedents. The intervenor highlighted several FIRs/CRs against the applicants under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, none of which were mentioned in the bail petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that antecedents must be disclosed, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The interim bail application was also disposed, with the court permitting the applicants to file a fresh application disclosing all prior cases.

Issues considered

Whether an anticipatory bail application can be granted when the applicant fails to disclose existing criminal antecedents.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 321(2), 324(4), 329(3), 329(4), 342(4), 3(5), 35, 351(2), 352, 352(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

anticipatory bail
non-disclosure of antecedents
criminal antecedent
bail application
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Indian Penal Code
procedural law

Judgment

                                                  23-ABA-2052-2025.doc

                                                             Rohit Ghuge


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2052 OF 2025
Balkrishna Dnyanoba Khandve & Anr.                     …Applicants
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra                              …Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
None for Applicants.
Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP for Respondent.
Mr. Prashant Patil a/w Harshada Prabhune & Rishabh Srivastava, for the
Intervenor/First Informant.
API Sunil Ugale, API, Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune City, present.
_______________________________________________________________

                                 CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                 DATED: 17 AUGUST 2026
P.C.:


1.      As none has appeared for the Applicant in the morning session,

to give one more opportunity to the Applicant the matter was kept back

for the afternoon session. However, in the afternoon session also none

appears for the Applicant.

2.      Ms. Yadav, learned APP, for the Respondent-State, submits that

there is one criminal antecedent which has not been disclosed in the

Anticipatory Bail Application.

3.      Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Intervenor/First Informant,

states that, there is one more CR bearing No.110 of 2016 registered

with Vimantal Police Station, Pune City, for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,



                                    1
                                                         23-ABA-2052-2025.doc

1860 against Applicant No.2-Sagar Balkrishna Khandve i.e. Accused No.

2, which is not disclosed in the Anticipatory Bail Application. There are

three NCs registered against the Applicants as per the following details.

Sr. No.     NC/CR No.    Police Station               Act/Sections
     1       57/2025     Vimantal         Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352(2) and
                                          3(5) of BNS
     2      493/2025     Vimantal         Sections 352, 321(2) of BNS
     3      526/2025     Vimantal         Sections 351(2), 342(4) and 3(5) of
                                          BNS


4.       Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Intervenor/First Informant,

states that, apart from the above details, there is another FIR against

the Applicants being FIR No.126 of 2026 registered with Lohagaon

Police Station, Pune City, for the offences punishable under Sections

329(3), 329(4), 324(4) and 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5.       Accordingly, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court,

as the details of the antecedents are not set out, the Anticipatory Bail

Application is dismissed.

6.       In view of the dismissal of the Anticipatory Bail Application,

nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is also

disposed of.

7.       However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file fresh

application by disclosing in the application all the antecedents.



                                                   [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                          2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…