##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22941

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1418 of 2026

Rupesh Mahanand S/o Shri Ashok Mahanand Aged About 23 Years R/o

Near Shiv Mandir Panipath Gali, Jagannath Nagar, Shankar Nagar

Raipur, P.S. Khamhardih, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station

Cyber Range Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

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

RAJSHEKHAR

SONI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

Digitally

signed by

14.05.2026

RAJSHEKHAR

SONI

1. This is an office reference.

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

the present applicant was earlier rejected by this Court on merits and

thereafter the applicant preferred a subsequent bail application 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 on the ground of parity vide order dated

04.05.2026 passed in MCRC No.4101/2026, with other co-accused

persons who were subsequently granted bail by this Court relying upon

2

the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, it

has now been brought to the notice of this Court that several similarly

situated co-accused persons had approached the Hon’ble Supreme

Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No.166/2026 and other batch of connected

matters, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common order dated

02.04.2026 rejected their bail applications while directing the concerned

trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a period of

three months from the date of passing 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 similarly situated co-accused persons was annexed

nor any averment regarding the same was made in the application and

further no submission in this regard was advanced, it appears that the

material fact relating to rejection of the bail applications of the co-

accused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was intentionally suppressed

from this Court while seeking parity for grant of bail.

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

3

counsel appearing for the applicant, as to why the fact regarding the

passing of 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 and was not informed

by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has tendered his

unconditional apology before this Court.

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

accused persons had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and their

bail applications 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.166/2026 and connected

matters, it appears that several similarly