Bombay High Court
SUNNY RAOSAHEB PAGAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Anticipatory bail was dismissed because the applicant failed to disclose his criminal antecedents, contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
Summary
Sunny Raosaheb Pagare applied for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road, claiming no criminal antecedents by marking "N.A." in the application. The trial judge, after checking the CIS system, discovered multiple undisclosed criminal antecedents and held that the applicant had deliberately suppressed this information, violating Supreme Court guidance. The judge noted that the application lacked details of the antecedents, such as case numbers and sections, and cited the Supreme Court decision in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. which requires full disclosure. Consequently, the anticipatory bail was dismissed, but the court granted the applicant liberty to file a fresh application with complete antecedent details. The High Court upheld the trial judge’s dismissal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant fails to disclose existing criminal antecedents.
- Whether the omission of antecedent details violates the Supreme Court's directive on bail applications.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedents
- disclosure
- bail application
- Supreme Court precedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
927.ABA-2696.26.DOC
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.10.03
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
18:27:59 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2696 OF 2026
Sunny Raosaheb Pagare … Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents
______________________
Mr. Himanshu S. Gavit a/w Prasanna Nikam, for the Applicant.
Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
______________________
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 30 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard Mr. Gavit, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
and Ms. Tidke, learned APP, appearing for the State.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road by
order dated 5 August 2026 while rejecting the Anticipatory Bail
Application filed by the present Applicant has observed in
paragraph no. 10 which reads as under:
“10. It is pertinent to note that in Bail Application the
antecedents are shown as 'N.A.' which indicates 'Not
Applicable'. In affidavit the antecedents column kept blank.
This court has tracked the record of the applicant on CIS
system of Nashik-road and Nashik court. Surprisingly, this
court found number of criminal antecedents of the accused.
Page 1
PPN
927.ABA-2696.26.DOC
The applicant has deliberately suppressed the antecedents
and thus there is non-compliance of mandate of Hon'ble
Apex Court in that regard. Admittedly accused Sunny
Raosaheb Pagare has number of antecedents.”
(Emphasis added)
3. Thus, what is required to be noted that in the bail
application filed before the learned Trial Court the Applicant has
stated that as far as the antecedents are concerned, “N.A.” which
indicates “Not Applicable” and in the affidavit, the column
regarding antecedant is kept blank, thus indicating that there are
no antecedents. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge
himself traced the record of the Applicant on the CI system of
Nashik Road and Nashik and found that there are number of
criminal antecedents pertaining to the Accused.
4. In the above circumstances, it is required to be noted that in
this Anticipatory Bail Application, it is stated in paragraph no. 32
as follows :-
“32. That, the Applicant is having criminal antecedents but he is
released on Bail in those offences.”
5. Thus, what is stated in the Anticipatory Bail Application that
the Applicant is having criminal antecedents but he is released on
Page 2
PPN
927.ABA-2696.26.DOC
bail in those offences. Thus, no details whatever are given in the
Anticipatory Bail Application. Even it is not mentioned that how
many antecedents are there, no details of CR Nos., Sections under
which the offences registered are disclosed. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Zeba Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1 has
specifically stated that such type of application has to be dismissed
as it is the duty of the Applicant to approach the Court with clean
hands. Thus, accoridngly the Anticipatory Bail Application is
dismissed.
6. However in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the
Applicant to file a fresh Anticipatory Bail Application by giving all
the particulars of the antecedents.
7. Accordingly, Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed,
subject to above liberty.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188
Page 3
PPN
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.