IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5994 of 2026 SANDEEP Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Mohd. Rafik Sheikh, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia, Govt. Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Learned counsel for the applicant proposes to withdraw this first bail application filed u/S 483 of BNSS, 2023 for the reason that he has inadvertently failed to disclose the criminal antecedents of the applicant and requests for liberty to file fresh bail application alongwith explanation of criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further requests that the original vakalatnama be returned.

2. Considered. Prayer accepted.

3. The bail application is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

4. However, before parting with the order, it is pertinent to note that this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 56564/2025 directed the Principal Registrar of the Bench to seek directions regarding issuance of practice directions to the effect that no application/petition for bail be considered ready for listing until the criminal antecedents of the accused are properly explained in the bail application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 Livelaw(SC)389.

5. Accordingly, the order Admin/78-A/143-A/ dated 07.01.2026 was issued making it obligatory on the applicant/petitioner to disclose details of criminal antecedents and the officials of presentation section were directed to point out defect, if the criminal antecedent is not mentioned in the bail application as per earlier notification/order dated 07.01.2026 & 21.04.2025, otherwise no application/petition be considered ready for listing. Despite the directions, it is often observed that the matters, like the present case, are listed for hearing without disclosure of criminal antecedent.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 11.02.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 12669/2025 reported as Zeba Khan Vs. The State of U.P. & Others, 2026 INSC 144 observed that concealment of criminal antecedents leads to non-consideration of material fact regarding grant of bail. The Apex Court laid down as under:

"31. Of particular concern in the present case is the prima facie material indicating that Respondent No. 2 suppressed his criminal antecedents before the High Court by stating that he had no criminal history except the present FIR. Such incorrect and incomplete disclosure appears to have materially influenced the exercise of discretion in his favour, thereby vitiating the bail order.

42. It has been consistently emphasized by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.

43. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents before the High Court, both in the petition for quashing FIR as well as in successive bail applications. Even before this Court, only partial disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit, despite the existence of multiple criminal cases on record. This conduct cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse but reflects a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts.

44. This Court has, on numerous occasions, strongly deprecated such conduct. In Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, this Court disapproved the act of an accused who had concealed the dismissal of earlier bail applications as well as the pendency of proceedings before this Court, and issued specific directions mandating disclosure of all previous and pending bail applicat