1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3886 OF 2007 Bunty Randhir Mohite .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Mahesh B. Zanwar for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 28th January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. On page 6 of the application, following statement has been made:- "This is the 1st bail application preferred by the applicant in this Hon’ble High Court and the applicant has not filed any bail application in 2 any court of law except the present one. 3. On the last occasion, the learned APP submitted that this statement is false and previously a bail application was filed by the applicant. The matter was adjourned to today to confirm whether any bail application was filed by the applicant earlier. Today when the matter was called out, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no previous bail was filed by the applicant and the statement made in the application is correct. Thereupon the learned APP produced for my inspection a xerox copy of the writ issued in Criminal Application no.1625 of 2007 which clearly shows that the applicant had previously applied for bail. 4. On perusal of the copy of the writ, it appears that the application for bail was filed in respect of Crime no.110/06. In the present application, it has been mentioned that the present bail application is made in respect of Crime No.5 of 2007. Learned APP however submitted that the present application is also in respect of Crime no.110/06 and crime number has deliberately been mentioned wrongly with a view to mislead the court that this is the first bail application and the previous bail 3 application was in respect of a different offence. Learned counsel for the applicant now admits that the present bail application is also in respect of Crime No.110/06. 5. It appears to me that a false statement has been made in the application that this is the first bail application. It also appears that crime number is also deliberately mentioned wrongly so that the prosecution is unable to discover the previous bail application. However only on account of the diligence of the prosecutor that it is brought to my notice that this is the second bail application made that the previous bail application has been rejected but by falsely stating that this is the first bail application. 6. In view of suppression of facts and positive misstatement the application deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. Application is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)