1 2026:CGHC:22942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1417 of 2026 Dhirendra Nirmalkar S/o Mahesh Nirmalkar Aged About 22 Years R/o 95/195, Guru Gobind Singh Dhobipara, Pandri, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, 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 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.4103/2026, with other co-accused persons who were subsequently granted bail by this Court relying upon the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, it has PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.15 11:04:30 +0530 2 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. 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 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 oral unconditional apology before this Court. 3 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 situated co-accused persons, whose bail applications had also been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, subsequently preferred bail applications before this Court without disclosing the aforesaid order and obtained bail orders on the ground of parity. All such matters have been directed to be listed before this Court for appropriate consideration. 8. Further, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the bail application of the similarly situated co-accused persons already stands rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and further considering that the order granting bail to the applicant appears to have been obtained by suppression of material facts and by misleading the Court. This Court is not inclined to permit continuance of the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 4103/2026. 9. Accordingly, the order granting bail to the applicant dated 04.05.2026 passed in MCRC No.4103/2026, is hereby recalled. 10. The applicant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court within a period of 48 hours from today, failing which the trial Court concerned 4 shall take the applicant into custody in accordance with law and send him to jail. 11. Accordingly, this CRMP stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance, if any. The counsel for the applicant shall communicate this order to the applicant, forthwith. Sd/-/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti