1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5686 of 2025 1 - Govind Sharma S/o Jeevanram Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Beside Government Hospital, P.S. Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Sejal Makkad, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 30.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.121/2025 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 111, 112 of BNS 2023 and Section 4 & 5 of The Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. 2. As per prosecution case, on 30.06.2025 on secret information being received by the police, a raid was conducted at Ujala Palace, Pithora and found number of accused persons playing gambling by dice and from the accused persons total Rs.5,30,000/- cash, 9 four wheeler vehicles, 7 motorcycles, 28 mobile phones and two items of dice were seized. FIR was registered and accused persons were arrested. 2 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The similarly situated co- accused persons have been granted bail by the trial court. There is no evidence on record that the present applicant called the other co- accused persons for playing gambling through dice. She would submit that the accused Puran Lal and Het Ram have stated in the reply of their notice that they went there on being called by one Gopal. The accused Shiv Gupta and Anil have stated that they have gone there on being called by Raja Bagga. Sarabjeet had stated that he had gone there on call of Gurpreet. Khemraj has stated that he went there on being called by Kapil. Except cash amount and mobile phone, no other incriminating articles were seized from the present applicant. He is neither the owner of that Ujala Palace nor having any connection with the owner of that Ujala Palace. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 30.06.2025, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail as final adjudication will take sometime. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that there is criminal antecedent against the present applicant of Crime No.208/2015 of similar nature of offence. The present applicant was caught on the spot and Rs.15000/- cash was seized from him. He has been arrested along with other accused persons and as per the material available in the charge sheet he is the person who obtained commission from the fund of gambling and therefore he was actively involved in the offence. The bail application of two other co-accused persons namely Amarpreet Singh and Amardeep Singh have been rejected by this court vide order dated 3 22.07.2025 in MCrC No.5729 of 2025. Therefore, the bail application of present applicant is also liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during investigation, further considering that the case of present applicant is different than other co-accused persons namely Amarpreet Singh and Amardeep Singh as they were the owner of that Ujala Palace, further considering the stand taken by other co-accused persons that they were called by different person and also considering the role of present applicant in the offence, without considering anything on merits, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance on each date of hearing before the trial Court, unless exempted from personal appearance by the said Court. 8. It is made clear that the observations made by this court is only restricted to the decision of bail application and shall not affect the merits of the case. The trial court is expected to decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder 4 (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder