Bombay High Court

PARVEZ RAFIQUE CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: ANTICIPATORY BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was rejected because the applicant failed to disclose his criminal antecedents as required by Supreme Court precedent.

Summary

Parvez Rafique Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under the Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The State opposed, contending that the applicant’s affidavit falsely stated his criminal antecedents as ‘unknown’ despite five cases, three pending, including a known case under Section 324 IPC. The court examined the Supreme Court’s directive in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. that all antecedents must be disclosed. Finding the applicant’s statement to be false and a non‑disclosure of material facts, the court held that the bail application could not be entertained on that ground. The application was therefore rejected, without reaching the merits, and the applicant was permitted to file a fresh application if law allows.

Issues considered

Whether a false or incomplete disclosure of criminal antecedents in a bail affidavit warrants rejection of an anticipatory bail application.
Whether the applicant’s claim of ‘unknown’ antecedents is untenable in view of known pending cases.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352
Indian Penal Code — s. 324, 34
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedents
false affidavit
disclosure requirement
Arms Act
Maharashtra Police Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Supreme Court precedent
bail application rejection

Judgment

KVM
1/3
905 - ABA 2593 OF 2026.doc

Digitally
signed by
KANCHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2026.09.22
19:18:43
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2593/2026

PARVEZ RAFIQUE CHAUDHARY ….. APPLICANT

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….. RESPONDENT

Adv. Rehana Begum for the Applicant.

Mr. Bapu Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

PSI Sujit Baburao Kharat, Chitalsar Manpada Police Station, Thane
City present.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-

1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned

APP for the respondent- State.

2) The applicant has filed instant application seeking

pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 268/2026 registered with

Chitalsar Manpada Police Station, Thane City for offence under

Sections 25, 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 135, 37(1) of the

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 109(1), 189(1), 189(2),

190, 191(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3) Before any arguments are advanced on merits, learned
KVM
2/3
905 - ABA 2593 OF 2026.doc

APP has invited attention to the affidavit filed by the applicant

regarding criminal antecedents and by pointing out Clause (D) of the

affidavit at page 13, he has submitted that the applicant has

mentioned the remark against the criminal antecedents as ‘unknown’.

However, it is submitted that five criminal cases were registered

against the applicant and as on today, three criminal matters are

pending against the applicant. He submits that even before the

Sessions Court, the prosecution has pointed out that there are criminal

antecedents against the applicant. In this background, it is submitted

that the statement on affidavit made by the applicant regarding

criminal antecedents being not known to the applicant is a false

statement. He, therefore, submits that the applicant has failed to

reveal all the criminal antecedents as required by the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Zeba Khan vs. State of U.P., 2026

SCC OnLine SC 188 and therefore the application needs to be rejected

on this ground alone.

4) In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits

that the applicant was not aware about the antecedents and therefore

he has mentioned the remark as ‘unknown’ in column (D) of his

affidavit dated 1st April, 2026.

5) This contention stands falsified in view of the submission
KVM
3/3
905 - ABA 2593 OF 2026.doc

of the learned APP that one of the criminal case pending against the

applicant in connection with FIR No. 136 of 2015 for offence under

Section 324 read with 34 of IPC, is at the stage of evidence and the

applicant is aware about the said offence.

6) Considering all these aspects, it becomes amply clear that

the applicant has failed to disclose the criminal antecedents in the

affidavit and despite registration of several offences, has mentioned

the antecedents with the remark as ‘unknown’. This clearly shows

that the applicant has failed to disclose the criminal antecedents as

required by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Zeba

Khan (supra).

7) The application therefore deserves to be rejected on this

count alone.

8) Accordingly, the application is rejected.

9) It is clarified that this Court has not decided the

application on merits and the applicant is entitled to file fresh

application, if permissible by law.

[PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.]

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…