The High Court dismissed the regular bail application of Applicant who was accused of offences under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC -- The applicant had initially obtained anticipatory bail by undertaking to deposit Rs. 12,00,000/- but failed to comply, leading to rejection of his application on 26.10.2021 -- He then obtained regular bail from the Magistrate Court on 13.05.2022 by suppressing the fact that his anticipatory bail was rejected -- This bail was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 439(2) of CrPC for material suppression of facts -- The applicant remained absent during trial, leading to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and his arrest on 10.11.2025 -- The Court rejected his bail application citing fraud on the court, abuse of judicial process, flight risk, and criminal antecedents
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the bail application filed by Applicant seeking regular bail in connection registered for offences under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -- The Court held that the applicant's conduct of suppressing material facts about the rejection of his anticipatory bail application and obtaining bail from the Magistrate Court through misrepresentation constituted fraud on the court -- The Court applied the principle established in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath [(1994)1 SCC 1] that no court can allow a person to get advantage of an order by playing fraud -- The applicant's prolonged absence during trial, necessitating issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant, and his criminal antecedents in Crime No. 275 of 2019 were additional factors against granting bail -- The Court found the applicant to be a flight risk and held that his conduct disentitled him to discretionary relief of bail
The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant's conduct of suppressing material facts, obtaining bail through misrepresentation, prolonged absence during trial, and criminal antecedents disentitled him to discretionary relief of bail
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 67
Case Number: Bail Application No. 2419 of 2025 with Criminal Application No. 4749 of 2025 IN BA/2419/2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-17
Case Title: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his conduct of suppressing material facts, obtaining bail through misrepresentation, and subsequent non-appearance during trial proceedings
Before Judge: Sachin S. Deshmukh J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-AUG:1921
Advocate(s): Mr. A. N. Raut, Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, Mr. V. S. Palsikar
Appellant: Nisar Beg Ajij Beg
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
Nature of Litigation: Criminal bail application seeking regular bail in fraud case
Remedy Sought: Applicant seeking regular bail after arrest on 10.11.2025
Filing Reason: Applicant's bail applications rejected by Trial Court on 11.11.2025 and Additional Sessions Court subsequently
Previous Decisions: Anticipatory bail application rejected on 26.10.2021 -- Regular bail obtained from Magistrate Court on 13.05.2022 through suppression of facts -- Bail cancelled by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 439(2) of CrPC -- Criminal Writ Petition No. 323 of 2023 dismissed by High Court -- Regular Bail Application No. 2336 of 2025 rejected by Additional Sessions Court
Issues: Whether the applicant's conduct of suppressing material facts and obtaining bail through misrepresentation disentitles him to discretionary relief of bail Whether the applicant's prolonged absence during trial and criminal antecedents make him a flight risk
Submissions/Arguments: Applicant's counsel argued absence was due to medical emergency, not willful -- Applicant ready to abide by stringent conditions including regular appearance -- Prosecution opposed bail citing suppression of facts and fraudulent conduct -- Prosecution highlighted criminal antecedents in Crime No. 275 of 2019 -- Prosecution argued applicant is habitual offender with propensity to evade law
Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation cannot claim discretionary relief of bail -- Fraud on the court vitiates the entire proceeding and any order obtained through such deception is a nullity -- Conduct of the applicant, including abuse of judicial process and flight risk, are crucial considerations in bail matters
Judgment Excerpts: "the applicant is indulged in an act of suppression which was aimed to cause fraud upon the Court" -- "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'" -- "Since fraud unravels everything, any order obtained through such deliberate deception is a nullity in the eyes of the law" -- "the history of non-appearance creates a reasonable and well-founded apprehension that the applicant is at flight risk"
Procedural History: 20.05.2021: FIR registered -- 2021: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 739 of 2021 filed -- 26.10.2021: Anticipatory bail rejected for non-compliance -- 13.05.2022: Charge-sheet filed, applicant surrendered, obtained bail from Magistrate Court -- 2022: Bail cancelled by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 439(2) of CrPC -- 2023: Criminal Writ Petition No. 323 of 2023 dismissed -- 10.11.2025: Applicant arrested after Non-Bailable Warrant execution -- 11.11.2025: Bail rejected by Trial Court -- 2025: Regular Bail Application No. 2336 of 2025 rejected by Additional Sessions Court -- 17.01.2026: Present bail application dismissed by High Court
