1 2025:CGHC:14933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2457 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, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate. For Non-applicant (s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. This is the third bail application of the applicant who has been arrested in the offence of Crime No. 157/2024, registered at Police Station Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 6 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022. 2 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30-09-2024 after arguing for some time, passed in MCrC No. 6341/2024. No liberty was granted to the applicant while withdrawing his first bail application. 3. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 04-12-2024 passed in MCrC No. 8435/2024 on the ground of no change in circumstances. Hence, this third bail application of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 14-05-2024, the FIR was registered against 11 accused persons, including the present applicant, the charge sheet was filed on 06-08-2024 before the learned trial court showing some of the accused persons absconding. The applicant is also arrested on 06-07-2024. Till 12-12-2024, total 08 witnesses have been examined out of 16 cited witnesses. The case was fixed for 29-01-2025 for the recording of the evidence of the investigating officer and other witnesses, but in the meantime, the co-accused Madhur Jain has been arrested and the supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him, and the case was fixed for framing of charge against him on 28-02-2025 and again the trial of the case will start against him. A restart of the trial will take more time in the conclusion of the trial, which is the change in circumstances. Some of the accused persons in the case have been granted bail by the learned trial court. He further submits that the bail application of the applicant has not been rejected on merits. He would rely on the judgment of “Subhelal v. State of Chhattisgarh” 2025 SCC Online SC 347, and pray for grant bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/state would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submit that twice the bail application of the application has been rejected by this court. Though the order was not on merits, it has been passed after considering the merits of the case, and the applicant himself has withdrawn 3 his first bail application. The trial of the case is in progress, and 08 witnesses have been examined till 12-12-2024. It is a case of online gambling, and clinching evidence is available against the applicant in the charge sheet that he is also involved in the offence. The subsequent arrest of the co-accused and filing of a supplementary charge sheet would not be the change of circumstance, and the applicant can approach the learned trial court to get his trial separated if the delay is being caused in his trial. Therefore, there is no change in the circumstances of the case and the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. While considering the first bail application, the same was dismissed as withdrawn after arguing sometime which reflects from the order dated 30-09- 2024. No liberty was granted to the applicant at that time. On 04-12-2024, while considering the second bail application of the applicant, it has been observed that till that day, 07 witnesses have been examined, and this court finds no change in circumstances. Now, the applicant has filed the third bail application saying that the co-accused Madhur Jain has been arrested, a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him, and the trial of the case will be restarted, which will take more time to conclude the trial of the present applicant. In the present case, the trial of the case is in progress and the recording of evidence of the witnesses is going on. It cannot be said that because of the reason that the supplementary charge sheet is filed against co-accused Madhur Jain, the trial of the case is withheld or delayed. The applicant can approach the trial court to get his trial separated if he feels the trial of his case is delayed. 8. It is the settled position of law that successive bail applications are permissible under changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without 4 a change of circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking a review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of M.P. v. Kajad”, 2001 (7) SCC 673. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused, and prolonged delay in disposal of the trial would confer a right upon him to apply for bail, but this court is sensitive to the nature of the allegation against the applicant and the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence alleged to have been committed. So far as the bail granted to the other accused persons is concerned, the case of the applicant is different than the case of the other accused persons who have been granted bail in the case by the learned trial court and the allegation against them was only using of their bank account for money transaction of the online gambling, but the allegation against the present applicant is that he actively involved in online gambling and operation of the batting app. The allegation against the applicant is the commission of the economic offence of gambling through online mode along with other co-accused persons. It is an organised crime and allegation of siphoning of huge amounts from innocent persons. There is evidence against the present applicant in the charge sheet that he closely connected with the other co-accused persons to run the online gambling platform through the batting app and money transactions through the forged bank account. The benefit of the judgment of Subhelal (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be extended as in that case; the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered Section 437(6) of the CrPC, whereas in the present case, the consideration is of Section 439 of CrPC (483 of the BNSS, 2023), for grant of regular bail. 9. In view of the state of affairs, since there is no change in circumstances after the rejection of the second bail application of the applicant on 04-12-2024, except that the co-accused Madhur Jain is arrested and supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him and the applicant is in jail since 06- 5 07-2024, in view of nature and gravity of accusation, the allegation against the applicant, this court not inclined to admit this third bail application and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. However, considering the period of detention of the applicant, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. 11. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial court for compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.02 18:31:54 +0530