Bombay High Court
GAUS MUSTAFA SAYYEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- Withdrawn
Holding
Non‑disclosure of an appellant's criminal antecedents constitutes suppression of material facts and precludes the court from entertaining the appeal until proper disclosure is made.
Summary
The appellant, Gaus Mustafa Sayyed, was found to have suppressed his criminal antecedents during the pendency of his appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court, citing the precedent of Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that an appellant has a duty to disclose any prior criminal history and that failure to do so constitutes suppression of material facts. Consequently, the court was reluctant to entertain the appeal and the appellant sought leave to withdraw the appeal with a request to file a fresh one after disclosing the antecedents within a week. The court allowed the appellant to revive his request but rejected the one‑week timeframe, granting a one‑month period instead. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal after the stipulated period.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellant is obligated to disclose his criminal antecedents in a pending appeal
- Whether non‑disclosure of such antecedents amounts to suppression of material facts warranting dismissal of the appeal
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- disclosure of antecedents
- suppression of material facts
- appeal withdrawal
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
934 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2026
GAUS MUSTAFA SAYYED
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Maruti Venjane Tukaram, Advocate for Appellant
Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State
Mr. Onkar Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Since it was argued before this Court that the appellant had suppressed
his criminal antecedents, this Court was disinclined to entertain the appeal. In
view thereof, learned Advocate for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the
appeal, with liberty to prefer a fresh appeal by disclosing the antecedents of
the appellant within a period of one week.
2. In view of the judgment in the 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 appellant to disclose his
criminal antecedents, and non-disclosure thereof amounts to suppression of
material facts.
934 APEAL 646.2026.odt 1 of 2
3. Having regard to the same, though this Court is inclined to permit the
appellant to revive his request, the same cannot be permitted within a period
of one week, as sought. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to the appellant to revive his request after a period of one month
from today.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
934 APEAL 646.2026.odt 2 of 2
Checking your session…