##PAGE1##

1

Digitally 2026:CGHC:22951

signed by

ABHISHEK

ABHISHEK SHRIVAS

SHRIVAS D 20a 2te 6: .05.15 NAFR

11:08:23

+0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1408 of 2026

Nikhil Aahuja S/o Suresh Kumar Aahuja Aged About 35 Years R/o New

Rajendra Nagar, Janta Quarter No. 226, Thana New Rajendra Nagar, Distt.-

Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Civil Line, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kukreja, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy.

Govt. Advocates.

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 granted bail to the applicant

vide order dated 20.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3577/2026. However, it has

2

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. 21343/2025, 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 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

3

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 oral 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