1 2025:CGHC:35136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5729 of 2025 1 - Amarprit Singh S/o Harmindar Singh Aged About 40 Years 2 - Amardip Singh S/o Harmindar Singh Aged About 40 Years Both R/o Village Pithora, Thana And Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Pithora District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri NK Malviya, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Suyash Dhar, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. When the matter is being fixed for final hearing, the counsel for the applicants would submit that some early date may be given as the applicants are in jail since 30.06.2025, therefore, this court is inclined to hear the matter today itself and it is heard finally. 2. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicants who are in jail since 30.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.121/2025 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 111, 112 of BNS 2023 and Section 4 & 5 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.26 14:21:18 +0530 2 3. As per prosecution case, on 30.06.2025 on secret information being received by the police, a raid was conducted at Ujala Palace, Pithora and found number of accused persons playing gambling by dies and from the accused persons total Rs.5,30,000/- cash, 9 four wheeler vehicles, 7 motorcycles, 28 mobile phones and two items of dies were seized. FIR was registered and accused persons were arrested. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants would submit that out of 26 accused persons, 23 have been released on bail by the trial court. The offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the applicants are in jail since 30.06.2025. There is no concrete evidence against the applicants to connect them in offence in question. On the date of incident family gathering was going on in the said Palace where the police conducted raid and arrested the accused persons. Therefore, the applicants may be released on bail as final adjudication will take sometime. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that the present applicants are the owner of said Ujala Palace. Co-accused Govind Sharma called the other accused persons and they were engaged in playing gambling through dies and huge amount of Rs.5,30,000/-was seized from them. The accommodation was provided by the present applicants. Therefore, the case of present applicants and other accused persons who have been granted bail by the trial court is different and looking to the nature of offence and the material collected during investigation, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 3 7. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during investigation, the fact that applicants are the owner of Ujala Palace where all the accused persons gathered and were engaged in playing gambling and huge amount of Rs.5,30,000/- was recovered from them and vehicle and dies were also been seized; considering the impact of gambling on the society and also finding the case of present applicants different from the case of other accused persons who have been granted bail, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicants is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder