Chattisgarh High Court
Ritesh Sultania vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:33650
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5592 of 2025
1 - Ritesh Sultania S/o Shri Ramavtar Sultania Aged About 24 Years R/o
Bajrang Chowk Pendra Police Station And Tahsil Pendra District Gaurela-
Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Pendra Dist- Gpm (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akshat Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
17/07/2025
1. This is the fourth bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 30.09.2024 after arguing for some time passed in MCRC No.
6341 of 2024. No liberty was granted to the applicant while dismissing
his first bail application. The second bail application of the applicant
was dismissed on 04.12.2024, passed in MCRC No. 8435 of 2024 on
Digitally
the ground of no change in circumstances. Thereafter, the third bail
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.07.21
18:45:57
+0530
2application of the applicant was dismissed on merits on 27.03.2025,
passed in MCRC No. 2457 of 2025, thereafter this fourth bail
application has been filed.
2. The applicant is arrested on 06.07.2024 in the offence of crime No.
157 of 2024, registered at police station Pendra, district Gaurela-
Pendra-Marwahi for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 6 and 7 of Chhattisgarh Gambling
(Prohibition) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the trial of the
case has not been concluded till date. The applicant is in jail since
06.07.2024. After recording the evidence of investigating officer and
other witnesses, the co-accused Madhur Jain has been arrested and
supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him, which has
also been connected with the present case, and thereby, there is delay
in conclusion of the trial against the present applicant. Restart of the
trial will take more time in conclusion of the trial and the entire complex
of the evidence would change. Some of the accused persons have
been granted bail by the learned trial Court. There is no direct
evidence against the present applicant with respect to his involvement
in the offence in question. The father of the present applicant is
suffering from heart disease and for the applicant claiming released on
bail for treatment of his father, as there is no other male member in the
family. He would further submit that the father of the applicant is
suffering from multiple chronic ailments including heart disease and
3
his condition is deteriorating day by day. He would further submit the
medical certificate of his father, which demonstrate his ailment, for
which he has filed an application for grant of interim bail also,
therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and
would submit that, earlier 03 bail applications of the applicant have
been rejected by this Court. From the medical certificates annexed
with the present bail application of the father of the applicant appears
that he is suffering from some ailment since 2020, but in the earlier bail
applications, the applicant has not claimed his bail on the ground of
ailment of his father. Further, from the document (Annexure A/3) it
appears that the father of the applicant has been discharged from the
hospital on 16.06.2025, and thereafter, he executed the affidavits in
support of the bail application on 24.06.2025, 10.07.2025 and
14.07.2025 at Bilaspur. The third bail application of the applicant has
already been rejected on merits; the trial of the case is at its advance
stage. The allegation against the present applicant is that he actively
involved in the online gambling and operation of the betting app and
engaged in organized crime of online gambling along with other co-
accused persons. The nature of offence having huge impact on the
economic of the country as well as public at large, therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the bail application.
4
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected
during the investigation, further considering that earlier 03 bail
applications of the applicant have been dismissed, the third bail
application has been dismissed on merits, in the earlier bail
applications, the applicant has not taken the ground of ailment of his
father, makes the applicant disentitle to admit this fourth bail
application. From the document (Annexure A/3), it appears that he
remained hospitalized at Swastik Hospital, Pendra from 14.06.2025 to
16.06.2025 and treated by the Dr. Prakash Chand Sultania, MD.
Medicine, thereafter, he came to Bilaspur thrice for execution of the
affidavits in support of the bail application, but there is no document
with respect to his treatment from any Cardiac Specialist, it cannot be
said that his condition is so serious, which requires the release of the
applicant on bail. Further, the trial is in progress and number of
witnesses have already been examined in the case. The nature of
offence and its impact and the allegation of involvement of the
applicant in the organized crime of online gambling and operation of
the betting app, I am not inclined to admit this fourth bail application of
the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application as well as application for grant
of interim bail of the applicant Ritesh Sultania is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved