Amardip Singh Khanuja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:47366

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 6853 of 2025

¶6

1 - Amardip Singh Khanuja S/o Harmindar Singh Khanuja, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pithora, Police Station Pithora, District, Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Amarprit Singh Khanuja, S/o Harmindar Singh Khanuja, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pithora, Police Station Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police - Station Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶11

... Non-applicant

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Applicants : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amitesh Yadav and Mr. Sabyasahi Bhaduri, Advocates.

¶14

For State/Non-applicant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board

¶16

15-09-2025

¶17

1 . This is the second bail application filed by the applicants under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before this Court for grant of regular bail. The first bail application of the applicants has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 22-07-2025 passed in MCRC No.5729/2025. The applicants are in jail since 30-06-2025 in connection with Crime No.121/2025 registered at Police Station- Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 111, 112, 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Section 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

¶18

2 . Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that after rejection of the first

¶19

Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.15 19:44:40 +0530

¶20

2

¶21

bail application charge sheet has been filed and from the material collected during the investigation various discrepancies transpires in the investigation with respect to gathering of the other accused persons at the place of incident. Though the present applicant No.1 is the owner of that Ujala Palace where all the accused persons were said to have been gathered, however, there is no uniformity as to who called them at that place. Co-accused Puranlal and Hetram stated in their reply of the notice that they went there on being called by one Gopal, the accused Shiv Kumar Gupta has stated that he went there on being called by Raja Bagga, Sarabjeet has stated that he had gone there on the call of Gurpreet and Khemraj has stated that he went there on being called by Kapil. Charge sheet has been filed, investigation has been completed and no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicants are on jail since 30-06-2025. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicants and final adjudication of the case will take its own time. The other co-accused persons have already been released on bail. Therefore, the present applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

3 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that the first bail application of the applicants has been rejected on merits and the other accused persons have been gathered on being called by the present applicants. The matter requires evidence and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for bail.

¶23

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application.

¶24

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation, further considering that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the other co-accused persons have been released on bail, the applicants are in jail since 30-06-2025 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶25

3

¶26

Accordingly, this second bail application filed by the applicants for grant of regular bail is allowed.

¶27

8 . It is directed that applicants Amardip Singh Khanuja and Amarprit Singh Khanuja shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on the following conditions that :-

¶28

(i) they shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court ;

¶29

(ii) they shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶30

(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless their personal presence is exempted by the trial Court.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶33

Aadil

Amardip Singh Khanuja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amardip Singh Khanuja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shashikala Kosam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Arunabh Mukharjee Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Jayanti Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sindhu Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Idris @ Ibbu Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jankalal Gupta Vs Omprakash Yadav