RITESH SULTANIYA @ GUNGUN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:19495
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
Date:
2026.05.12
14:47:42 +0530
SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 236 of 2026
Ritesh Sultaniya @ Gungun S/o Ram Awtar Sultaniya Aged About 23 Years
Cast - Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 07, Pendra, P.S.- Pendra, District- Gaurella-
Pendra-Marwahi, (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Pendra, District- Gaurella-Pendra-
Marwahi, (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
27/04/2026
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the
1.
petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 against the impugned order dated 01.01.2026, passed by learned
nd
2 Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, Dist- Bilaspur, in Criminal
Revision No. 43 of 2025, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner
has been dismissed and the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by learned

2
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case no.
1094/2024, dismissal of the application under Section 480 (6) of
BNSS,2023, has been affirmed.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused persons
2.
in the Criminal Case No. 1094/2024, pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pendra Road, for the offence under
Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 of IPC and Section 6, 7 and 8
of Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 and Section 66-C and
66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000, which was arising out of
Crime No. 157 of 2024, registered at Police Station Pendra. It is
alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons were
engaged in Online Gambling through their mobile phone by using
online batting app. When the Police received a secret information and
conducted raid, they found three persons there, however, after seeing
the Police personnel, one of them fled away. The other two persons
were arrested who disclosed their name as Prakash Kewat and Harsh
Jaiswal. They disclosed the name of the absconding accused as Ritesh
Sultaniya who is the present petitioner. From the mobile phone of the
arrested persons certain whats app chats, money transactions through
Phone Pay app have been extracted. The mobile phone of the present
petitioner was also seized from the spot which he left while fleeing from
the place. The other accused persons were also arrested and from
their interrogation, the involvement of the present petitioner and one
Madhur Jain was disclosed that they are the persons who provided
them the link to play online batting app through mobile phone. All of
them disclosed the manner in which they organized the crime,
transaction of sim cards and money through online mode of payment,

3
provided the forged sim card and mule bank accounts for bank
transaction of money to the present petitioner Ritesh Sultaniya. On
06.07.2024 when the present petitioner was arrested, he also
disclosed that he purchased the master ID user name, password
silverexch.com and also purchased three new mobile phone numbers
and using the WWW.Rajaranibook.com and Bigbexchange account and
engaged in playing online gambling. The chare-sheet was filed against
the accused persons on 06.08.2024. The charges have been framed
against the accused persons including the petitioner on 03.09.2024,
however, the trial of the case would not be concluded till date and
therefore, the petitioner had filed the application under Section 480(6)
of BNSS, 2023. The said application filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed on 28.02.2025 by the learned trial Court. Against the order
dated 28.02.2025, the petitioner had filed the Criminal Revision before
nd
the learned 2 Addl. Sessions Judge, Pendra Road which has also
been dismissed on 01.01.2026 and the same is under challenge in the
present Cr.M.P.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge against
3.
the petitioner has been framed on 03.09.2024 and till date even after
60 days period from the date of framing of charge is over, the trial of
the case has not been concluded. The offences are triable by learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class and the trial of the case should have
been concluded within 60 days as provided under Section 480(6) of
BNSS/ 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. and if the trial is not concluded within the
stipulated period, the accused is entitled for default bail. In the present
case, also the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period and

4
therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for default bail. In support of his
submission, he would relied upon the judgment passed by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Atul Bagga v. State of Chhattisgarh , 2009 (3)
CGLJ 448.
On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the
4.
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has
submitted that on 03.09.2024, the charges have been framed against
the petitioner. On 09.10.2024, two prosecution witnesses have been
examined, thereafter, on 21.10.2024, three prosecution witnesses, on
06.11.2024 two prosecutions witnesses and on 12.12.2024 one
prosecution witness have been examined. On 12.12.2024 itself a
warrant of arrest was issued against one witness Naveen, thereafter,
the absconded accused Madhur Jain was arrested and his
supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against him on 10.01.2025
and the case was transferred to the Court of another Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pendra and the supplementary charge sheet
against the co-accused Madhur Jain was tagged with the original
charge sheet. The case was adjourned for want of record as the co-
accused Madhur had applied for grant of bail before the learned
Sessions Court, Pendra Road and learned counsel appearing for the
co-accused had taken time for argument before the charge and
ultimately on 28.02.2025, the charge against co-accused Madhur Jain
has also been framed and the witnesses who were already examined
and cross-examined have been recalled for their re-examination and
re-crossexamination by the accused Madhur Jain. In the meantime, the
petitioner has filed his application under Section 480 (6) of BNSS, 2023
which has been rejected by the learned trial Court. It also transpires

5
from the charge sheet that on 06.03.2025, 01.04.2025 the witnesses
have been examined and on 01.04.2025 the accused Madhur Jain has
pleaded that he does not want to re-crossexamine the witnesses who
have already been cross-examined by the other accused persons.
However, his right to cross-examine the witnesses was reserved. On
15.04.2025 bailable warrant was issued against two witnesses and on
25.04.2025, two witnesses have been examined. Again on 23.05.2025,
the bailable warrant was issued to another witness and he has been
examined on 04.07.2025. Further on 18.07.2025 another witness was
examined.
He would further submits that considering the nature of offence and the
5.
involvement of the petitioner in alleged offence of online gambling with
the syndicate of other accused persons, he is not entitled for default
bail and the order passed by learned Trial Court as well as Revisional
Court is absolutely justified and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
He would also submit that the provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS
(437(6) of CrPC) are not mandatory, but there are certain limitations.
The learned trial Court is trying to conclude the trial in expeditious
manner and summons and warrants are regularly issued to the
witnesses for their presence. He would rely upon the judgment passed
by coordinate Bench of this Court in CRMP No. 112 of 2023 ( Prakash
Bahpakadiya v. State of Chhattisgarh ), order dated 16.01.2023.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
6.
annexed with the petition.
It is necessary to quote here the provisions of Section 480(6) of the
7.
BNSS,2023 which reads as under:-

6
“ If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person
accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded
within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for
taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in
custody during the whole of the said period, be released
on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for
reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate
otherwise directs.
”
In the matter of Atul Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of CG reported in
8.
2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2373, considering the scope and nature of 437
(6) Cr.P.C., legal proposition has been settled that the right conferred
on the accused under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. is not absolute one and
the same is subject to the conditions stated in the said provision. This
Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the
judgment in Atul Kumar Shrivstava (supra) which reads thus:-
“9. In Gurucharan Singh (supra)1, the Supreme Court
has held that object of Section 437(6) of the CrPC is to
speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining a person
as an under trial prisoner, and observed as under:
"........There is similar provision under sub-section
(6) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to
section 497(3A) of the old Code. This provision is
again intended to speed up trial without
unnecessarily detaining a person as an undertrial
prisoner, unless for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.....…"
10. This court in Atul Bagga (supra) in unmistakable
terms has held that apart from the gravity of offence and

7
the quantum of punishment, the following factors,
among others may weigh with the Magistrate while
refusing dealing the application under Section 437(6) of
the CrPC and held as under:
"11. xxx xxx xxx
(a) the overall impact of the offence and the release
of the person accused of such offence on the
society,
(b) the possibility of tampering the evidence by the
accused,
(c) the possibility of the accused absconding if
released on bail, and lastly,
(d) the delay in conclusion of the trial within, a
period of 60 days if attributable to the accused."
11. Thus, the seriousness of the offences for which the
accused has been charged, the overall impact of the
offence and the release of the person accused of such
offence on the society, the possibility that the accused,
if released on bail is likely to influence the witnesses or
tamper with the prosecution evidence, the fact that other
co-accused are absconding would be relevant factors
for refusing bail under sub- Section (6) of Section 437 of
the Code.
12. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of
Devraj Maratha @ Dillu v. State of M.P. considered the
question whether the provisions contained in sub-
section (6) of Section 437 of the CrPC is mandatory for
the magistrate to release the accused on bail when the
trial is not concluded within a period of sixty days from

8
the date fixed for taking evidence in the case and
answered the question as under:
"21. In view of preceding analysis and enunciation
of law governing the field, the reference is
answered as under:
(a) Provision envisaged in sub-section (6) of
Section 437 of the Code is mandatory in the sense
that the Magistrate is required to exercise his
power of granting bail after the statutory period, if
the trial is concluded within that, however, passing
of an order under Section 437(6) of the Code is
mandatory, but not grant of bail.
(b) The Magistrate is vested with full power to take
into consideration - (i) the nature of allegations; (ii)
whether the delay is attributable to the accused or
to the prosecution; and (iii) criminal antecedents of
the accused or any other justiciable reason, while
refusing to grant bail."
13. It has clearly been held by the Madhya Pradesh High
Court that, what is mandatory is passing of an order
under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, but grant of bail on
failure to conclude the trial within the statutorily fixed
time limit is not mandatory to which I respectfully
agree.”
Recently, in the matter of “ Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of
9.
Chhattisgarh ” AIR 2025 SC 1483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed certain conditions in its judgement for deciding the
application under Section 437(6) of the CRPC. In Para 13 of its
judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-

9
“13. So far as fundamental right of an accused
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
concerned, insofar as it relates to a speedy trial, the
same cannot be pressed into service vis-a-vis the right
of an accused accruing under of the Code.
Section 437(6)
Because the right of the accused under Section 437(6) of
the Code is altogether different than one envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section
of the Code takes in its sweep only the right to
437(6)
speedy trial, whereas Article 21 of the Constitution of
India has a very wide connotation.”
In the matter of “ Atul Bagga ” (supra) the coordinate Bench of this
10.
Court has observed in Para 11 and 13 that:-
“11. The question that arises for determination is as to
what factors should weigh with the Magistrate while
refusing grant of bail under subsection (6) of Section
437 of the Code. In my considered opinion, apart from
the gravity of offence and the quantum of punishment,
one or more of the following factors, among others may
weigh with the Magistrate while refusing bail:
(a) the overall impact of the offence and the release
of the person accused of such offence on the
society,
(b) the possibility of tampering of evidence by the
accused,
(c) the possibility of the accused absconding if
released on bail, and lastly,
(d) the delay in conclusion of the trial within a
period of 60 days if attributable to the accused.

10
13. Thus the seriousness of the economic offences of
high magnitude for which the petitioner was charged, the
overall impact of the offence and the release of the
person accused of such offence on the society, the
possibility that the petitioner, if released on bail was
likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with the
prosecution evidence, the fact that other co-accused
were absconding would be relevant factors for refusing
bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code."
Reverting to the facts of the present case, from the charge-sheet, it
11.
reveals that there is allegation against the present petitioner that when
the Police conducted raid for after receiving secret information, he
found three persons operating mobile phone and when they
intercepted them, two persons were arrested and one was succeeded
to flew from the place. From the mobile phone of the other two accused
persons and the mobile phone seized from the spot which was of the
petitioner’s mobile, various transactions have been found and from the
whats app chat, the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence
in question has been found. The material available in the charge-sheet,
clearly reveals their syndicate and the manner in which they are
executing their role in the syndicate. There are money transaction
through online mode and further that there is specific allegation against
the petitioner, he is involved in online gambling by using Master ID user
name, password silverexch.com and used Bigbexchange online batting
platform for playing online gambling.
12. From perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned trial
Court has considered the gravity and seriousness of the offence, which

11
may affect the public at large. Taking a cumulative view of all the above
mentioned grounds and such serious magnitude that their release are
likely to affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that the
learned trial Court has passed the order after due appreciation of the
material available on record as well as the law laid down in the field, in
which I do not find any illegality or perversity warranting interference in
the impugned order as it is well settled that discretion exercised by the
trial Court is not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 unless the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily,
perversely or capriciously, but in the present case, nothing has been
shown that the discretion is exercised in the manner contrary to the
law.
Resultantly, the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
13.
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed .
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to observe that a duty is
14.
cast on the Magistrate to ensure that summons are promptly issued by
the Court and to conclude the trial as early as possible within the
stipulated time framed.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Judicial Magistrate
15.
for speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
sagrika