Vinod Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This is the first bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the applicant, apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.277 of 2025, registered at Police Station- Navagarh, District-Bemetara, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

¶16

2. Case of the prosecution is that, on 20.10.2025, Police of the PSNavagarh, District-Bemetara received a secret information that illegal activities of card gambling are going on in the brick-kiln of present applicant. Police conducted raid on the brick-kiln of the applicant, and arrested the accused persons, who were engaged in card gambling. Accused persons were arrested in different groups, who were engaged in different gambling activities, and on

¶17

Mcrca 1791 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

their interrogation, they disclosed that it is the present applicant, who organized and managed card gambling activities at his brick-kiln, and they came there to play the card gambling on his instance. Police registered the offence with respect to each group, engaged in the said gambling, and the name of the applicant is mentioned in as many as 22 offences, which have been registered against the present applicant. Investigation of the case is pending in which the applicant is apprehending his arrest.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the place of incident is alleged to be the brick-kiln of the applicant, but the same is an open place, and accessible to the common people. At the time of Diwali festival, villagers were engaged in card gambling. Applicant was totally unaware of the activities going on at his brick-kiln, and he was not present there at the time of alleged incident. Applicant is Ward Member, and due to some political rivalry, and on the instance of their rival party, Police registered offence against the present applicant in as many as 22 cases, only to make the offence graver. Except the statement of the witnesses that the accused persons have disclosed that they came there on the instance of the present applicant, no other evidence is available in the case-diary against the applicant. As the applicant is having good reputation in the society, and in the community, only to defame him, their opponent party has hatched conspiracy against the applicant, and thus, he prays for anticipatory bail.

¶21

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application, and would submit that place of incident is brick-kiln of the applicant, who facilitated the players to play card gambling. Present applicant provided tent, water supply, electricity etc., to the players. Though it was the

¶22

Mcrca 1791 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

time of Diwali festival but such a huge illegal activities are going on at the brickkiln, and the same cannot be possible at that place, without involvement of the present applicant. From the statement of witnesses- Ramesh Kumar Dindore, and Siyaram Sahu, it is clear that accused persons have disclosed name of present applicant, and he called them to play card gambling, and huge amount of cash, Motorcycles, and other articles have been seized from them. The manner in which the alleged gambling was organized by the present applicant, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. He would further submit that applicant is having criminal antecedents of Crime No.290 of 2019, in which he was convicted and sentenced with fine. Another in Crime No.168 of 2015, and 174 of 2020. Therefore, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶25

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the case-diary.

¶26

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, material collected during the investigation, further, considering the statement of witnesses- Ramesh Kumar Dindore, and Siyaram Sahu, and the manner in which the alleged act of card gambling is being managed and organized at the place of brick-kiln of present applicant, also keeping in view of the past criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶27

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application of Vinod Kumar Sahu, s/o Nand Kumar Sahu is dismissed.

¶28

Certified copy of the order as per rules.

¶29

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶30

padma

Vinod Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Rungta Rice Mill Vs Kamal Narayan Rungta And Anr.

(Deleted) Jethiyabai through LRs Vs Ramcharan and Ors.

Vinod Agrawal Vs Smt. Madhulata Shrivastava

Smt.mayadevi Gupta And Anr. Vs Sukhnath And Ors.

Rameshwar Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhruvil Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh