KVM 1/3 905 - ABA 2593 OF 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2593/2026 PARVEZ RAFIQUE CHAUDHARY ….. APPLICANT VS 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 KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2026.09.22 19:18:43 +0530 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.]