1 2025:CGHC:46994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1294 of 2025 1 - Raj Chetani S/o Late Dilip Chetani Aged About 34 Years R/o Jarhabhatha, Mandir Chowk, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. The present is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 153 of 2025, registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.15 18:17:37 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.04.2025, the police of police station Torwa, Bilaspur received a secret information that co-accused Yogesh Bodhwani engaged in online gambling on IPL cricket match and he is coming to Titli Chowk for recovery of the amounting of betting. On being raid conducted by the police, they arrested, Yogesh Bodhwani near Titli Chowk, Bilaspur and from him a register has been seized in which the details of betting and the amount of betting is endorsed. Two mobile phones having SIM No. 7869787519 in one mobile phone, his bullet motorcycle and cash of Rs. 1,50,320/- have been seized from him. On being interrogation, he disclosed that he is working for Ajay Harzani, Rahul Tarsani and Raj Chetani (present applicant) and on their instructions, he is recovering the amount of online gambling. He also disclosed that the amount of Rs. 7,37,800/- which was the amount of gambling is kept in his house, which has also been seized from Yogesh Bodhwani. The FIR has been registered, in which the applicant is apprehending his arrest. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, there is no evidence against the applicant that he engaged in online gambling with other co-accused persons. Neither any electronic evidence nor any direct evidence or any incriminating material seized against the present applicant, which connects him with the offence in question. Even through the mobile phone of co-accused, nothing has been discovered, which indicates the involvement of the applicant with the offence in question. The applicant is not connected with the other co- accused persons. The name of the applicant only appears in the memorandum statement of Yogesh Bodhwani, which is not the 3 incriminating piece of evidence. He would further submit that the applicant has been acquitted in the previous offence registered against him vide judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 795 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and the judgment dated 24.06.2025, passed in Criminal Case No. 511 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. Relying upon the order dated 05.02.2025, passed in MCRC No. 948 of 2025, he would submit that the memorandum statement of co-accused is not the substantive evidence and the same cannot be relied upon against the applicant. He is having good reputation in the society and community, and therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that, in the memorandum statement of co-accused Yogesh Bodhwani, the name of the present applicant appears that they are engaged in playing online gambling on the instance of the present applicant Raj Chetani and other co-accused persons. The present applicant could not be arrested and therefore, his mobile phone also could not be seized to recover the relevant data from his mobile phone. It is an online gambling through the electronic devices and the interrogation from the applicant would disclose the network on which they are engaged in online gambling. He would also submit that the present applicant is having criminal antecedents of the similar nature of offence i.e. the Crime No. 102 of 2018, registered at police station Takhatpur for the offence under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling 4 Act, 1867, Crime No. 403 of 2019, registered at police station Civil Lines, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, Crime No. 103 of 2018, registered at police station Takhatpur for the offence under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, Crime No. 51 of 2016, registered at police station Sirgitti, Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 34(2), 59(A) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 4-A of Public Gambling Act, 1867, and Crime No. 57 of 2022, registered at police station Torwa, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 4-A of Public Gambling (C.G. Amendment) Act, 1976. He would further submit that from the evidence collected during the investigation, the involvement of the present applicant with the other co-accused persons in playing online gambling is reflected. Online gambling is an organized crime having various facets and impact upon the economy of the country. In view of the gravity of the offence and the manner, in which the applicant involved in the alleged offence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, considering the material collected during the investigation and the allegation against the present applicant regarding his involvement in the offence in question, gravity of the offence and its impact of organized crime, further considering the material against the applicant in the case diary and criminal antecedents against him, although he has been acquitted in two cases registered against him, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application filed by applicant Raj Chetani is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved