SHAIKH ZAKIR SHAIKH RASHIDversusNISAR BEG AJIJ BEG MIRZA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:1921



                                                                 932 BA No.2419.2025
                                               -1-

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2419 OF 2025

                                     NISAR BEG AJIJ BEG
                                          VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ***
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A. N. Raut
              APP for Respondents-State : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar
              Advocate for Applicant (Cri.Appln.) : Mr. V. S. Palsikar (Assit to PP)
                                               ***
                                       WITH
                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4749 OF 2025
                                  IN BA/2419/2025
                                               ***

                                      CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                          Date : 17th January, 2026
              ORDER :-


              1.          The applicant has approached this Court seeking

              regular bail in connection with FIR dated 20.05.2021 bearing Crime

              No. 134 of 2021 registered with Phulambri Police Station, Dist.

              Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504

              and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.



              2.          In connection to the above offence, the applicant

              approached this Court presenting Anticipatory Bail Application No.

              739 of 2021, where a statement was made on behalf of the

              applicant that an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- would be deposited
                                                  932 BA No.2419.2025
                                  -2-

with this Court. Considering this statement, the interim relief was

granted. The said amount was to be deposited within a period of

three weeks from the date of the order to show bona fides. On

account of non-payment, a further time was extended by four

weeks.



3.         In spite of repeated extensions, the applicant did not

comply. Resultantly, considering the conduct of the applicant, this

Court by its order dated 26.10.2021, rejected the application

presented by the applicant. After the rejection of the application by

this Court, it appears that the applicant approached the Trial Court

seeking his release on bail by presenting an application on

13.05.2022.



4.         Upon completion of the investigation of the crime, the

charge-sheet is filed on 13.05.2022. On the same date, the

applicant surrendered before the Trial Court. Consequently, the

application seeking bail was presented. The learned Trial Court was

made to believe that the applicant is protected by this Court in an

anticipatory bail application. As such, the learned Magistrate

enlarged the applicant on bail.
                                                     932 BA No.2419.2025
                                    -3-

5.          Raising an exception to the same, the informant

approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad

presenting a Cri. Misc. Application No. 337 of 2022 for cancellation

of bail under Section 439(2) of CrPC. The learned Additional

Sessions Judge, taking into account order dated 13.05.2022, is

obtained by material suppression of facts. Resultantly, cancelled

the bail of the application with a direction to surrender himself

before the Trial Court.



6.          The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was

further subject matter of challenge in Criminal Writ Petition No. 323

of 2023 wherein this Court has endorsed the same by dismissing

the petition presented by the petitioner predominantly on account

of suppression.


7.          It    is   submitted   that,   subsequently,   due   to   the

applicant’s continuous absence during the trial, the Trial Court

issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW). In execution of the said

warrant, the arrest of the applicant was effected on 10.11.2025.

Following the arrest, the applicant moved an application for bail

before the Trial Court. However, the same was rejected vide order

dated 11.11.2025 and since then, applicant has been in judicial

custody.
                                                     932 BA No.2419.2025
                                   -4-

8.             Subsequently, the applicant preferred Regular Bail

Application No. 2336 of 2025 before the learned Additional

Sessions Court, Aurangabad. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge, considering the facts and circumstances, rejected the bail

application. It is thereafter, the applicant has approached this

Court seeking the grant of regular bail.



9.             The learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant

was initially enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court on

13.05.2022.       While   a    Non-Bailable   Warrant    (NBW)     was

subsequently issued due to the applicant's non-appearance, it is

submitted that such absence was neither willful nor intentional, but

was occasioned due to medical emergency of applicant. The

applicant has already suffered incarceration since his arrest on

10.11.2025.


10.            The learned counsel for applicant further submits that

the applicant is ready to strictly abide by any and all stringent

conditions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to impose,

including marking his presence before the concerned Police Station

and ensuring his punctuality before the learned Trial Court on

every date of the proceedings. As such, prayed to allow the

application.
                                                    932 BA No.2419.2025
                                  -5-

11.         The learned APP and the learned counsel for the

informant vehemently opposed the application submitting that the

conduct of the applicant disentitles to the discretionary relief of bail

since the incident of misrepresenting the fact that his initial

anticipatory bail application is rejected by this Court, still the

learned Magistrate was made to believe that the applicant is

protected. As such, the application does not warrant consideration.



12.         Furthermore, the learned APP draws the attention of

this Court to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, specifically

noting his involvement in Crime No. 275 of 2019, registered at the

City Chowk Police Station for similar offences. The Prosecution

submits that the applicant is a habitual offender who has

demonstrated a clear propensity to evade the law. As such, prayed

for the rejection of the application.


13.         Upon considering the submissions of both sides and

perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, it is

prima facie evident that the applicant is indulged in an act of

suppression which was aimed to cause fraud upon the Court. The

learned Magistrate was made to believe that the order of this Court

granting interim protection in ABA No. 739 of 2021 was in vogue,

which is factually incorrect.
                                                     932 BA No.2419.2025
                                  -6-

14.           This Court, taking into account the non-compliance by

the applicant, already has rejected the anticipatory bail application

by its order dated 26.10.2021. The learned Magistrate was thus

misled believe that the applicant was protected by this Court in the

anticipatory bail application. Apart from the fraud upon the Court,

which is increasingly apparent, the fraudulent conduct of the

applicant in deceiving the informant is also prima facie surfacing

from the record.


15.           Furthermore, the principle of "fraud on the court" as

established    in   S.P.   Chengalvaraya     Naidu   Vs.   Jagannath

[(1994)1 SCC 1] dictates that "no court in this land, even if it be

the highest court, can allow a person to get an advantage of an

order or a decree by playing fraud." By suppressing the fact that

the anticipatory bail application had already been rejected and

misrepresenting the status of judicial protection to the learned

Magistrate, the applicant has vitiated the entire proceeding. Since

fraud unravels everything, any order obtained through such

deliberate deception is a nullity in the eyes of the law, as a litigant

who approaches the court with unclean hands and a dishonest

intent has no right to be heard on merits.


16.           Equally, it is evident that the primary ground for the
                                                         932 BA No.2419.2025
                                     -7-

applicant’s present incarceration is his prolonged absence during

the trial. Although the applicant was granted the privilege of pre-

arrest   bail,   however,   having     failed   to    honour   the   solemn

undertaking given to the this Court. Such conduct amounts to a

flagrant abuse of the liberty and has directly resulted in the stalling

of a trial that originated in 2021.


17.          Pertinently, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the

applicant’s presence could only be secured through the execution

of a Non-Bailable Warrant, after a gap of over three years. The

history of non-appearance creates a reasonable and well-founded

apprehension that the applicant is at flight risk.


18.          Moreover,      the   existence      of     adverse      criminal

antecedents, specifically Crime No. 275 of 2019 at City Chowk

Police Station for similar offences, indicates that the applicant is

not a first-time offender. The repetition of similar alleged offences

while a prior case is pending, coupled with the deliberate

suppression of material fact in the present case, demonstrates a

persistent disregard for the judicial process.


19.          The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Munnesh Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) SC 605] has observed as under :-
                                                   932 BA No.2419.2025
                                 -8-

          “11. However, before parting, we consider it
          necessary to dwell on one aspect. A growing trend
          is being noticed of individuals, seeking from this
          Court the concession of bail or concession of
          protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special
          leave petitions their involvement in other criminal
          cases. In such cases where involvement is not
          disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long
          incarceration without reasonable progress in the
          trial is invading the right to life of the accused or
          that the offences for which the FIR has been
          registered are not too serious, notices are issued
          and only thereafter, information of criminal
          antecedents is being provided in the counter
          affidavits filed by the respective respondents-
          States, as in the present case. The result is that this
          Court, being the apex court of the country, is being
          taken for a ride. This Court has shown leniency in
          the past but we think it is time that such state of
          affairs is not allowed to continue further.

          12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each
          individual who approaches this Court with a Special
          Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed
          by the high courts/sessions courts declining prayers
          under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal
          Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483,
          Bharatiya     Nagrik     Suraksha    Sanhita     shall
          mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either
          he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has
          knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case,
          he shall clearly indicate the same together with the
          stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case,
          have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be
          incorrect subsequently, that itself could be
          considered as a ground for dismissal of the special
          leave petition.”


20.        As has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Munnesh (supra), it was obligatory for the applicant to disclose

the criminal antecedents, while presenting the bail application and
                                                     932 BA No.2419.2025
                                   -9-

the same is not complied with.


21.           In light of aforesaid peculiar circumstances, I am of the

considered opinion that the interest of justice outweighs the

personal liberty of the applicant. Granting bail to an accused with a

proven track record of absconding and prior criminal involvement

would undermine the authority of the Trial Court and further delay

in the conclusion of the case.


22.           Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present

application. The bail application deserves to be rejected.


23.           Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.


24.           Resultantly, pending criminal application also stands

disposed of.



                                         (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Omkar Joshi