1 2025:CGHC:59519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2536 of 2025 Shantilal Chopda S/o Late Shri Champalal Chopda, Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. 2, Chopda Compound, Azad Ward No. 37, Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing, Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to- i. Set Aside / Quash the order dated 16.05.2025 to the extent, pertaining to the issue of warrant against the petitioner in Special Case No.02/2025 (Crime No.05/2025) pending in the Court of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act / First Additional Session Judge, Raipur. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 ii. The competent court be directed to recall the warrant of arrest so issued against the petitioner.” 3. It has been pointed out by Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, that the impugned order which has been challenged in the present petition by which arrest warrant has been issued by the trial Court against the petitioner on 16.05.2025, in the meanwhile the petitioner had also preferred an anticipatory bail application which was rejected by the trial Court on 18.06.2025 and against the said order, he also preferred an anticipatory bail application before this Court bearing MCRCA No. 1803/2025 which was in default. But the same came up before this Court on 18.11.2025 and the counsel for the applicant in the said case had prayed that the said bail application be dismissed as withdrawn as he has filed present CRMP No.2536/2025 which was came up before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on 04.09.2025, an objection was raised by the State counsel and thereafter, the matter was posted for 12th of September, 2025. 4. On 18.11.2025, the present matter came up before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on the said date, the MCRCA No.1803/2025 also came up before this Court, and on 18.11.2025 this Court passed the order which is reproduced here as under: “1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 05/2025, registered at Police Station - EOW/ACB, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 3 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1), 13(2) and 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh, as the present application suffers from various defects. 3. Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek Kaushal, Neeraj Gupta, Avinesh Kumar, and Shashank Chopda, have already been rejected by this Court, and against those orders, the said co-accused persons preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 5151 of 2025 and connected matters, which was also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.09.2025. 4. In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, the present MCRC stands dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh. 5. After passing of the aforesaid order, Mr. Saurabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appeared and informed this Court that an important material fact had been concealed and suppressed, that the applicant, who has filed the present anticipatory bail application (which suffers from various defects as pointed out by the Registry), has also filed CRMP No. 2536 of 2025, listed today before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the applicant has challenged the order issuing a non-bailable warrant by the concerned trial Court. 6. Furthermore, when Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant, was queried as to why he had concealed the aforesaid fact that the applicant had filed CRMP No. 2536 of 2025, which was listed today before the Co-ordinate 4 Bench, he stated that, since the causes of action in both cases are different, he did not mention the same before this Court. 7. I am of the view that a lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must remain true to his profession and assist the Court in the adjudication of matters with full fairness, without concealing any fact that may be relevant for proper adjudication. However, this was not done by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. It is reflected from the cause list that the present anticipatory bail application suffers from the following defects: "(1) Court Below Name Wrongly Mentioned In Entire Application. (2) Sr.No. Wrongly Mentioned In Page No.12, 13, 14 & 15. (3) Sr.No.4(A) Wrongly Mentioned In Page-2 As Performat Of Mcca. And 02 Surname Of Applicant Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title. And 03 Certified Copy Of Annexure A/1 With Ablong & Copying Chart Not Filed. And 04 Court Fees Not Affixed In Bail Application. And 05 Page No. 79 Is. Faint/Easily Not Readable. And 06 Provision Of U/S Wrongly Mentioned In Page. As Per Office Note Dated 10-11-2025 And A.R.(J) Note Dated 13-11-20251" 9. Further, Mr. Kesharwani stated that the present matter was filed by Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. While the present order was being dictated, Mr. Mohit Kumar appeared, and upon a pointed query regarding the defects noted by the Registry, he stated that the bail application was drafted by Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate and thereafter an NOC was given by him. Consequently, Mr. Mohit Kumar filed the anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. 10. Mr. Mohit Kumar further stated that he is a practicing 5 Advocate of this Court and that he filed the present anticipatory bail application. It is surprising that, despite being a practicing Advocate of this Court, he did not take care to cure the defects in the application, which was filed before the Registry on 06.11.2025. The matter has come up today, and as per the High Court Rules, defects in such applications must be cured within 07 working days. However, the defects remain uncured, and the matter was sought to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. Additionally, the filing of CRMP No. 2536 of 2025 against the non-bailable warrant was not disclosed. This appears to be an attempt at forum hunting, particularly since the anticipatory bail applications of other co- accused persons have been rejected, and the order of this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. In view of the above, let a notice be issued to Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate, to enable him to explain why he should not be prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act for suppression of material facts regarding the filing of the aforesaid CRMP before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 12. Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel, further stated that he had disclosed the filing of the aforesaid CRMP No. 2536 of 2025 in paragraph No. E of the grounds of the present anticipatory bail application. However, upon a pointed query being made, asking why this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by him or by Mr. Aman Kesharwani (who, at the time, had prayed that the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed as withdrawn), he could not provide a satisfactory reply. 13. It is a well-settled principle of law that any material fact or passing remark made in the present petition must be brought to the knowledge of the Court by the counsel in all fairness, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others Vs. Karamveer 6 Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others, (2013) 11 SCC 531, wherein while dealing the said issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "42. While dealing with the conduct of the parties, we may also notice the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of a material fact from this Court, namely, the rejection on 2nd May 2003 of the first application for extension of time filed by the trustees and the finality attached to it. These facts have not been clearly disclosed to this Court by the petitioners. It was submitted that in view of the suppression, special leave to appeal should not be granted to the petitioners. 43. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no material facts have been withheld from this Court. It was submitted that while the order dated 2nd May 2003 was undoubtedly not filed, its existence was not material in view of subsequent developments that had taken place. We cannot agree. 44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision making to the Court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2nd May 2003 in the order dated 24th July 2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2nd May 2003 was passed or that it has attained finality. 45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558 stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: "It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, 7 special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent." 46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: "The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case." 47. A mere reference to the order dated 2nd May 2003, en passant, in the order dated 24th July 2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It is not for the Court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come up-front and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel, leave it to the Court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof.” 14. Reverting to the case in hand, the above-noted principles squarely apply to the present proceedings. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose all material facts with full candour and not to leave it to the Court to extract such facts from the record. Any omission or incomplete disclosure whether deliberate or otherwise strikes at the very root of the petitioner's claim, for a litigant who approaches the Court is required to do so with utmost fairness and transparency. 8 15. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner in the present case cannot escape the consequences of having withheld/suppressed material facts that bear directly on the adjudication of the issues involved. 16. After the passing of the aforesaid order, Mr. Mohit Kumar and Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel, appeared before this Court and tendered their oral and unconditional apology. They assured the Court that no such lapse or impropriety would occur in the future and expressed their sincere regret for the inconvenience caused to the Court. 17. In view of the apology so offered and the assurance furnished, and though this Court had initially contemplated issuance of notice, it considers it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to take a lenient view and hereby drops the proceedings against them.” 5. On 18.11.2025, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the fact that the petitioner had already filed MCRCA No.1803/2025 before this Court which was dismissed by aforesaid order, has directed the Registry to verify the facts and list this case before the appropriate Bench, and thereafter, the present CRMP has been listed before this Court today. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to give a justification for filing the present petition, and also the MCRCA No.1803/2025 which was stated to be in default, but the explanation does not seems to be a sound one for filing the present petition as well as the MCRCA No.1803/2025 simultaneously, and he states that this Court may grant some liberty to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court, and in the meanwhile keep the arrest warrant in abeyance. But the said prayer 9 made by the petitioner cannot be granted as the applicant’s anticipatory bail application have already been rejected by the trial Court on 18.06.2025 and he had filed an MCRCA No. 1803/2025 against the said order, and this Court on 18.11.2025, deprecating the conduct of the petitioner has rejected the same by passing the aforesaid order. 7. In view of the same, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file again an appropriate application for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Prayer for withdrawal of the instant petition is allowed. 9. In view of the same, the instant CRMP is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file again an appropriate application for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar