1 2026:CGHC:22945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1414 of 2026 Bobby Khatri S/o Mahesh Khatri Aged About 27 Years House No. G-24, Sheet No. 07, Omvihar Colony Tehibandha Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Than Civil Line Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kukreja, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. 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 06.05.2026 passed in RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 MCRC No. 4189/2026. 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.21181/2025, 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 3 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 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 present applicant already stands rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4 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 as the SLP (Crl.) No. 21181/2025 filed by the applicant before the Apex Court challenging the rejection of bail application by this Court, has already been dismissed. This Court is not inclined to permit continuance of the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 4189/2026. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 06.05.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4189/2026 granting bail to the applicant 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 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan