##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22945

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1414 of 2026

Bobby Khatri S/o Mahesh Khatri Aged About 27 Years House No. G-24,

Sheet No. 07, Omvihar Colony Tehibandha Raipur District Raipur C.G.

... Applicant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through - Than Civil Line Raipur District Raipur

C.G.

... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kukreja, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

14.05.2026

1. This is an ofÏce reference.

2. Taking into consideration the fact that the first bail application of the

present applicant was earlier rejected on merits and thereafter the

applicant preferred a subsequent bail application before this Court

claiming parity with other co-accused persons, particularly on the basis of

the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Criminal Appeal No.4494/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.13678/2025

whereby co-accused Ishika Singh was enlarged on bail, this Court had

RAHUL

DEWANGAN granted bail to the applicant vide order dated 06.05.2026 passed in

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

2

MCRC No. 4189/2026. However, it has now been brought to the notice of

this Court that after rejection of the earlier bail application, the present

applicant had also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP

(Crl.) No.21181/2025, which was heard along with a batch of connected

matters, the leading case being Sahil Jethwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh

in SLP (Crl.) No.166/2026, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide common

order dated 02.04.2026 rejected the bail applications of the similarly

situated co-accused persons including the present applicant, while

directing the concerned trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial

preferably within a period of three months from the date of the said order.

3. Further considering the fact that while preferring the subsequent bail

application before this Court, neither the aforesaid order dated

02.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejecting the bail

application of the present applicant and other similarly situated co-

accused persons was annexed nor any averment regarding the same was

made in the application and further no submissions in this regard was

advanced, it appears that the material fact relating to rejection of the

applicant’s bail application by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was

intentionally suppressed from this Court while seeking parity with other

co-accused persons.

4. The said suppression of material fact had the effect of misleading

this Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 483 of

the BNSS and the order granting bail appears to have been obtained by

playing fraud upon the Court. It is well settled that a litigant approaching

the Court is under a bounden duty to disclose all material and relevant

3

facts necessary for proper adjudication of the matter.

5. Upon a pointed query being put by this Court to the learned counsel

appearing for the applicant, as to why the fact regarding passing of the

order dated 02.04.2026 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not disclosed

before this Court while seeking parity, learned counsel submitted that he

was not aware of the said fact was not informed by the applicant. The

learned counsel has tendered his unconditional apology before this Court.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that

since the applicant himself had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and his bail application stood rejected therein, the said fact was a material

circumstance which ought to have been specifically disclosed before this

Court, nevertheless, in view of the unconditional apology tendered by

learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is not inclined to initiate any

separate proceedings against the said counsel.

7. From perusal of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.166/2026 and connected matters, it

appears that several similarly situated co-accused persons,