##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22948

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1411 of 2026

Suryakant Tiwari S/o- Ramratan Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o- H.No.

431, Ward No. 44, Purana Kashiram Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District-

Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

AKDKUEH WMI AAL NRES GH ANDsAKDiKUi Egg Hn WMiteIa AAdLl NR Eby S GyH AN

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Thana Civil Line, Raipur, District-

Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kukreja, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government

Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

14.05.2026

1. This is an office reference.

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

the present applicant was earlier rejected on merits and thereafter the

2

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 04.05.2026 passed in

MCRC No. 4077/2026. 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.21258/2025, 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

3

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 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

4

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