Ahmedabad

Manpasand Gymkhana Gambling Raid: Sessions Court Rejects Bail Application Of Premises Owner Nikunj Khatri

By GS Team
17 Aug 20262 mins read
TukuTouch Logo
Ahmedabad Court rejected Nikunj Khatri's anticipatory bail in an illegal gambling case at Manpasand Gymkhana. Despite claiming no administrative role, Khatri, a 33% stakeholder, leased premises for gambling, receiving ₹18,000 via cheque and ₹55,000 cash. With 191 arrests, the court cited his crucial role in facilitating the crime, deeming custodial interrogation essential to uncover the full operation.

Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info

Manpasand Gymkhana Gambling Raid: Sessions Court Rejects Bail Application Of Premises Owner Nikunj Khatri

The Ahmedabad Sessions Court on Monday, 17 August 2026, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Nikunj Khatri, who is accused of renting out premises at Manpasand Gymkhana in the Dariapur area to run a massive illegal gambling operation.

In his bail plea, Khatri argued that he holds no administrative position at Manpasand Gymkhana and had merely executed a temporary lease agreement for 11 and 29 days. He further claimed the contract explicitly prohibited illegal activities on the premises, adding that he was fully prepared to cooperate with the police investigation and was not a flight risk.

Prosecution Exposes Cash Trail And Illegal Gains

Strongly opposing the bail plea, Chief Public Prosecutor Sudhir Brahmbhatt informed the court that Khatri holds a 33% stake in the building. The prosecution revealed that under the guise of entertainment activities, the premises were leased to facilitate gambling, generating illegal rental income of ₹18,000 via cheque and an additional ₹55,000 in cash.

Investigating agencies have so far arrested 191 accused individuals in connection with the widespread gambling network operating out of the Dariapur site.

Court Highlights Key Role In Providing Infrastructure To Gamblers

Dismissing the plea, the court observed that the accused played a crucial role in providing necessary infrastructure and facilities to the gamblers involved in the criminal activity.

Given the serious nature of the offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation by the police to uncover the full extent of the operation, the court held that granting anticipatory bail to Khatri was not justified.