CGHC010329772026 2026:CGHC:38949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2304 of 2026 Karan Choudhary S/o Sanjay Choudhary Aged About 29 Years R/o Next To Spring Valley Colony, Opposite Friends Colony, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Police Station City Kotwali District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent, District Jail Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate. For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 02/09 /2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 assailing the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 57/2026 by which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, District- Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 217/2026 by which it directed for transfer of the petitioner from Central Jail, Raipur to Central Jail, Bilaspur and his prayer for again transfer to District Jail, Raigarh, has been rejected. 2. The facts as reflected from records are that an FIR bearing No. 218/2026 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station- ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.07 17:42:04 +0530 Kotwali, District- Raigarh for commission of offence under Sections 4 & 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (for short “the Act, 2022”) alleging that the petitioner was betting online through his mobile phone in the cricket match of Indian Premier League (IPL). The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 94 of the Act, 2022 for showing the license regarding betting along with valid documents but he could not provide the said documents, therefore, he was arrested and remained in District Jail, Raigarh and thereafter he was transferred to Central Jail, Raipur on administrative reasons. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for transferring him from Central Jail, Raipur to District Jail, Raigarh which has been rejected vide order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, District- Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 217/2026 and he has been transferred to Central Jail, Bilaspur. Against that, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh which is registered as Criminal Revision No. 57/2026 which has also been rejected vide order dated 13.08.2026. Hence, this CRMP has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of both the orders and also prayed for transferring him to District Jail, Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the peculiar circumstances of the petitioner as the petitioner is an undertrial prisoner and suffering from Thalassemia, therefore, he is entitled to reasonable access to his family and to effectively defend the criminal case pending against him at Raigarh. He would further submit that since Raigarh is his place of residence as well as the place where his family resides, lodging him there would facilitate regular family visitation and meaningful assistance from his family during incarceration. He would further submit that the petitioner is undergoing continuous treatment at Raipur for Thalassemia under the supervision of a doctor, therefore, his medical condition and continuity of treatment also warrant a sympathetic consideration. He would further submit that there is no specific finding or material indicating that lodging the petitioner at District Jail, Raigarh would adversely affect jail security, prison discipline, investigation, witnesses or administration of justice and his production before the concerned Trial Court can be regulated by the competent authorities in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner's request for transfer to District- Jail, Raigarh, or alternatively it has been prayed for to be remained at Central Jail, Raipur and would pray for setting aside the impugned orders. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra & others Vs. Saeed Sohail Sheikh & others [(2012) 13 SCC 192]. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supporting the impugned order would submit that the petitioner is an undertrial prisoner and his place of confinement is required to be determined primarily on the basis of prison administration, security and other relevant considerations, and not merely on the basis of the convenience of the prisoner or his family. She would further submit that the competent authorities and the Courts below have already considered the request of the petitioner and have not found any sufficient ground warranting his transfer from District Jail, Raigarh or Central Jail, Raipur. She would further submit that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or illegality in the impugned order and his medical requirements can be duly attended to by the jail authorities by providing appropriate treatment as and when required. She would further submit that mere pendency of the petitioner's criminal case at Raigarh or residence of his family there does not confer an absolute right upon him to be confined to a particular jail of his choice. The jail authorities are competent to decide the place of confinement having regard to security, administrative requirements and availability of appropriate facilities and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. This Court while hearing the matter directed the State to connect the Jail authorities as well as the concerned medical experts through video conferencing to assist with regard to health condition and with regard to availability of medical facilities at Bilaspur and in pursuance of the same, Mr. Yogesh Singh, Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Dr. Meena Samual, Medical Officer posted at Central Jail Raipur, Mr. Ramnesh Murty, Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science (CIMS) a Government Medical College Hospital, Bilaspur and Mr. Lakhan Singh, Medical Superintendent, CIMS Bilaspur are present before this Court through video conferencing. Dr. Meena Samual has informed to this Court that the petitioner’s illness is not serious and whatever treatment is required for the petitioner is available to them. The statement of Dr. Meena Samual is duly supported by Dr. Ramnesh Murty, Dean CIMS Bilaspur and would submit that the petitioner is suffering from Beta Thalassemia Trait which does not require emergent intervention or any specialized treatment and the same is available at Bilaspur, thus, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner regarding discontinuity or non-availability of medical treatment at Bilaspur does not find support from the expert of the subject. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for remaining him at Central Jail, Raipur, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 7. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an undertrial prisoner should be permitted to remain confined at or near his place of residence so that he may have regular contact with his family and effectively defend the criminal case pending against him at Raigarh, is being considered by this Court. 8. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that an undertrial prisoner does not cease to possess his fundamental rights merely because he is in custody. Reasonable access to family members and effective opportunity to defend oneself are relevant considerations while examining a request concerning the place of confinement. Such considerations cannot be treated as conferring an absolute or indefeasible right upon an undertrial prisoner to be confined at a particular prison of his choice. The place of confinement is also governed by considerations of prison administration, security, discipline, availability of facilities and the larger interests of the administration of justice. The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, is required to strike a balance between the legitimate concerns of the prisoner and the requirements of prison administration. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is an undertrial and his family resides at Raigarh. However, these circumstances, though relevant, cannot by themselves outweigh the administrative considerations governing the placement of prisoners, particularly when the petitioner's medical needs are being adequately addressed at Bilaspur and his presence before the Trial Court can be secured in accordance with law with video conferencing facilities provided from Central Jail and he can very well participate on each and every hearing before the trial Court from Central Jail, Bilaspur as almost all the Jails in the State of Chhattisgarh are connected through video conferencing facilities. 10. The reliance placed upon Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra) does not support the case of the petitioner. In fact, it supports the contention of the respondent that in a objective manner, the petitioner has been transferred from District Jail, Raigarh to Central Jail, Bilaspur. From the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the said case, it is quite vivid that the Court while transferring the prisoner from one Jail to Central Jail has to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the order on 02.07.2026 has called the report from Jail authorities at Raigarh wherein it has been found that the petitioner is not following the provisions of the Jail Manual, started groupism, misbehaving with the administration, insisting for remaining at Jail Hospital only. It has also observed in the report that he used to threat other prisoner being local resident of Raigarh. Considering these aspects of the matter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order which is in teeth of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra). Page 7 of 7 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelleved against the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any jurisdictional error, perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice in the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. 12. Consequently, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. 13. However, before parting to the case, it is directed that the jail authorities shall ensure that the petitioner continues to receive all requisite medical treatment and periodic medical evaluation for his illness. In the event any specialized treatment is considered necessary by the competent medical authority, the petitioner shall be provided such treatment in accordance with law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun