1 2025:CGHC:47630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6748 of 2025 1 - Nandlal @ Nandu Lalwani S/o Late Gopal Das Lalwani Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Near State Bank Of India, P.S. Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Govind @ Baban Lalwani S/o Nandlal Lalwani Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Near State Bank Of India, P.S. Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda - Nevra Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh and Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16/09//2025 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested on 14- 05-2025 in Crime No. 125 of 2025, registered at Police Station Tilda- Nevra, for the offence under Sections 111, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.18 18:27:03 +0530 2 61(2), 112(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”) and Sections 4-A, and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. 2. The prosecution’s case in brief is that, on 03-04-2025, the police received secret information that the co-accused Harsh Panjwani is engaged in online gambling through the “Gajanand App” in his house. During a raid, he was intercepted by the police. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he engaged in online gambling through “fair-play gaming panel No. 07, 12 and 13 of Gajanand App”. From him, 04 mobile phones, cash of Rs. 3,400/-, 05 Bank-passbooks, 08 cheque-books, 08 ATM cards, 06 account books, Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Passport, have been seized. From the mobile phone of the co-accused, Harsh Panjwani, the data was extracted, in which it was found that he was running a mobile group in the name of “New Feedback”. The involvement of the other accused persons namely Shiva Sen, mobile number 9630118110, Khubi Ram Patel, mobile number 7733995585 and Shailendra, mobile number 7415942378, was found, who were actively involved in the running of said “New Feedback” group and fair play gaming panel numbers 7,12 and 13. They used the mule bank account for the transaction of money received through online gambling. From the analysis of the mobile phone of Harsh Panjwani, the SDR mobile number of Govind Lalwani was recovered and found that he also involved in online gambling. From the memorandum statement of Sonu @ Shiva Sen, Khubi Ram Patel and Shailendra @ Sonu, it comes that the present applicant, Nandu Lalwani, took the SIM card of mobile Nos. 7415942378, 7733995585 and 9630118110, in their 3 names fraudulently, and engaged in playing online gambling through panels No. 7, 12 and 13. The present applicant was also arrested by the police, and his memorandum statement was also recorded. He disclosed in his memorandum statement that he was connected with panel No. 13 of “Gajanand App” through his mobile No. 8982439948 and thereafter destroyed the said SIM. During the investigation, the details of the suspected bank account were obtained, and it was frozen. After the due process of investigation, charge sheet is filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the investigating agency has acted most arbitrarily, and it had nothing but an ill-motivated and mala fide intention to implicate the applicants in the offence. They have no connection or association in any way, either with the affairs of the business of “Gajanand App” or have receiving the proceeds of crime. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the link between the present applicants with the alleged offence. He would further submit that in order to save the other accused persons, the present applicants have been implicated in the offence. There is no evidence against the present applicants that they were actively involved in operating any penal of “Gajanand App” or any other betting app, but it is alleged that certain SIM cards and mobile phones have been seized from them, which were used for online betting. He would further submit that there is no evidence collected by the prosecution that the mobile phones and SIM cards, which are allegedly seized from the applicants, are actually used in an online betting app. There is no connection between the applicants with that of 4 “Gajanand App”, or “fair play gaming panel Nos. 7, 12 and 13. The prosecution agency has collected the electronic evidence, for which there is no basis that the applicants are involved in the offence. There is no ingredients of cheating in the material collected during the investigation. No offence of either cheating, forgery of valuable security, using as genuine a forged document as genuine, any criminal conspiracy, or even causing the disappearance of any evidence. The electronic evidence collected by the prosecution is a very weak type of evidence, on which there is no possibility of sustaining a conviction of the applicants. There is no sufficient evidence in the charge sheet against the applicants that they were actively involved in illegal earnings through “Gajanand App”. 1.She would further submit that in the charge sheet it is alleged against the present applicants that they gained an unfair economic advantage by various illegal means, by providing mobile phones and SIM cards on online gambling, which makes them liable to be punished for the alleged offences, but there is no specific allegation against the applicants relating to any illegal act. There is no person who was cheated by the applicants. There is no evidence that the applicants conspired with the other co-accused persons. The applicants have been in jail since 14-05-2025, and to date, only a charge sheet has been filed, and even the charges have not been framed; therefore, there is every possibility of delay in trial, and the applicants are entitled to release on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and has submitted 5 that during the investigation, from the mobile phone of the co-accused Harsh Panjwani, the involvement of the other accused persons Shiva Sen, Khubi Ram Patel and Shailendra were found, and from them, the connection of the present applicants with the alleged “Gajanand App” and fair play gaming panel No. 7, 12 and 13 were found. From the analysis of their mobile phones, it was also found that they are actively engaged in online gambling and money transactions through mule bank accounts. The other accused persons are still absconding.*It is also submitted by him that the present applicants misused the Aadhar Card/Identity Card/Photos of various persons in the illegal business of betting through online gambling app, like Gajanand App, and Fair Play and misused their bank accounts. He would further submit that from the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons, the involvement of the applicants in the offence in question has been duly connected. In the present case, there is sufficient evidence available against the present applicants that they are involved in the alleged offence and looking to the seriousness of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the present case by both parties. 6. For consideration of the bail application of the applicant, the Court need not go deep into the merits of the case, but should consider the prima facie material against the accused in the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) has observed in para 401 of its judgment that:- 6 "401. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [(2005) 5 SCC 294). The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [(2013) 7 SCC 466], the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt." 7. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2007) 11 SCC 195, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "at the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during trial." 8. In the present case, the statements of Abhay Kesharwani, Lokesh Giri Goswami, Devendra Kumar Verma, Premnarayan Sen, Durgesh Ranekar, Constable Prakash Patre, Constable Sanjay Markam, Constable Dhananjay Goswami, Head Constable Santosh Verma, Head Constable Kripa Sindhu Patel, ASI Gendu Ram Navrang, ASI Mukesh Sori, Constable Kuldeep Verma, have been recorded in which they clearly stated about the involvement of the present applicants in the offence in question. From the electronic evidence of mobile devices 7 and the date extracted from it, their engagement and close connection are also revealed. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held in para 34 and 35 of its judgment that: "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 10. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties, as also from the material produced in the present case, it is not acceptable that the present applicants did not know about the transactions of Gajanand App and the money obtained by them. Seizure of mobile phones and SIM cards from the applicants and statements of the witnesses clearly demonstrate their association with the others, who were associated with “Gajanand App” and “Fair Play”. Denial by the applicants themselves is not sufficient to consider prima facie that there is no mens rea of the applicants for the said offence. Although the statements of the witnesses are required to be tested at 8 the time of trial; however, for the consideration of bail application, the statements of the witnesses are relevant. 11. As has been discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicants in the offence in question. It is an organized crime having various facets of its complexion; therefore, further considering the nature of the offence and material collected during the investigation, this Court is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence for believing that the applicants are involved in the offence; therefore, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 12. Consequently, the present bail application filed by the applicants, Nandlal @ Nandu Lalwani and Govind @ Baban Lalwani is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok