1/3 922-BA-438-2026 (CR).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.438 OF 2026 Rohan Alias Dingya Sunil Chandanshive ….Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sachin K. Hande a/w Mr. Vishal K. Hande, for Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 - State. Mr. Unmesh Jamdar i/b Adv. C. R. Sonecha, for Respondent No.2 (Complainant). _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Sachin K. Hande, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 – State, and Mr. Unmesh Jamdar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. By the present Application, the Applicant has sought the following substantive relief: “(b) Enlarge the Applicant on bail in connection with FIR No.0319 of 2023 dated 26/08/2023 registered with Kavathemahankal Police Station, District Sangli, for the Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.09.30 20:58:54 +0530 2/3 922-BA-438-2026 (CR).DOC offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. At the outset, Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 – State, and Mr. Unmesh Jamdar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, state that the Applicant has several antecedents to his credit, which have not been disclosed by the Applicant in the disclosure Affidavit. They, therefore, seek dismissal of the present Application in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zeba Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1. 4. Faced with the said objection, Mr. Sachin K. Hande, learned Advocate for the Applicant by admitting the error of not mentioning all the antecedents of the Applicant in the disclosure Affidavit on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present Bail Application with liberty to file a fresh Bail Application by disclosing all the antecedents of the Applicant. 5. The request for withdrawal of this Bail Application made by Mr. Sachin K. Hande, learned Advocate for the Applicant, is not opposed by Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 – State, and Mr. Unmesh Jamdar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188 Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/3 922-BA-438-2026 (CR).DOC 6. In view of the statement made by Mr. Sachin K. Hande, learned Advocate for the Applicant, leave is granted to withdraw the present Bail Application, with liberty to file a fresh Bail Application after complying with the requirements of law. 7. Criminal Bail Application No.438 of 2026 is dismissed as withdrawn. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum