1 2025:CGHC:6794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 475 of 2025 Preetpal Singh Bhatia S/o Nirmal Singh Bhatia Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Narsingh Kandu Para Dongargarh Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioners Name As Per Aadhar Card) ... Petitioner versus 1-State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2-Superintendent Of Police District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai 3-Police Station Khairagarh Through Station House Officer, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai ... Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06.02.2025 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner is seeking protection from any third degree action by the police of Khairagarh Police Station. Notice was served under Section 35(1) (e) of the B.N.S.S to the family members of the petitioner in pursuance of the Crime No. 133/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 6 and 7 of Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 registered at Police Station Khairagarh. During investigation notice was served by the police to the petitioner for his appearance before the concerned police station on 20.01.2025 and thereafter again on 24.01.2025. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that, a secret information regarding 2 online gambling was received, upon which Head Constable Geeresh Kumar Nishad reached near the village Prakashpur and arrested one Shrilal Banjare, who was found doing some illegal work of online gambling. A crime was registered as Crime No. 13/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 6 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 and started further investigation. Present petitioner also received a notice under Section 35(1)(e) of the above said act by the family members of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR there is nowhere mentioned the name of the petitioner and even he was having no knowledge about the over act done by the co-accused. Even his presence at that time was not mentioned in the FIR. As he is not arrayed as an accused in the said FIR therefore he is unable to obtain anticipatory bail from the competent court. He and his family members are getting threatened from the concerned police of the police station. To substantiate it he showed some photographs before this court. Hence he pleads to quash the impact of notice Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 and direct the concerned police station to issue a fresh notice strictly in accordance of law and direct to not to arrest the petitioner or torture him during any investigation in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that there is no documentary evidence which 3 could reveal that police of concerned police station is taking some third degree action against the petitioner. Moreover the photographs shown by the counsel of the petitioner does not possesses any credibility that the photographs pertain to the house of the petitioner. 7. It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2014 Part 8 SCC 273 held that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so and the said ratio reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2022 Part 1 SCC 676 in which it is categorically held that on consideration of Section 170 of Cr.P.C. which does not impose the obligation of the officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, police (Investigating officer) in this case shall proceed in accordance with law whereas the petitioner is directed that he shall fully coopearte with the investigation proceeding. If there arises any need of arresting the petitioner, then the respondent no. 3 is directed to follow the procedure of Section 41 A of the CrPC. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza