1 2026:CGHC:12192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 326 of 2026 Yogendra Kumar Sharma S/o Govind Prasad Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khaira Setganga, Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chilfi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 13/03/2026 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. 174 of 2025, registered at Police Station Chilfi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.16 19:58:16 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS-2023’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 12-11-2025, the police of Police Station Chilfi received a secret information that, a person is engaged in cheat gambling near Raitara Khurd Hanuman Mandir, Chilfi main road. The police party conducted raid there and arrested the co- accused Sanjay Sahu alias Sanju, who was actively engaged in playing cheat gambling. From the co-accused Sanjay Sahu alias Sanju, cash of Rs. 75,700/- and two gambling chits and two mobile phones have been seized. The FIR has been registered and during investigation, he disclosed that he engaged in cheat gambling on the instance of the present applicant Yogendra Sharma since 1 ½ years and he gave commission of 7% to the present applicant Yogendra Sharma. During the investigation, certain bank transactions were also discovered between the account of the co-accused Sanjay Sahu alias Sanju and the present applicant Yogendra Sharma in his SBI bank account No. 20358726785 and ICICI bank account No. 328001500809 and then the present applicant has also been made as accused in which the applicant, in which he is apprehending is arrested. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that, except the memorandum statement of the co-accused Sanjay Sahu, there is no other evidence which connected the present applicant with the offence in question. The co-accused Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu was running a Lok Seva Kendra and the present applicant is having business of purchasing and selling of paddy and rice and there was a 3 business transaction between Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu and the present applicant. The bank transaction was with respect to their commercial transaction of the business which the police projected to be the illegal transaction of chit gambling. He would also submit that the police usually called him and made accused in various cases of gambling only to settle their personal score. In the offence of Crime No. 66 of 2025 registered at Police Station Fasterpur and Crime No. 91 of 2025 registered at Police Station Fasterpur for the offence under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, the Supreme Court has granted interim protection of stay of his arrest vide order dated 05.02.2026. The applicant is having good reputation in the society and community and therefore he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He would also submit that the co-accused Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu has been released on regular bail by the learned Sessions Court. Therefore, the present applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant that he was connected with the co-accused Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu and both of them were engaged in playing chit gambling. Co-accused Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu was acting on the instance of the present applicant, who after receiving amount from the gamblers transferred the same to the present applicant through bank transaction. From the account statement of the bank account of the applicant, there is a bank transaction between the present applicant 4 and Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu. He would further submit that there are four criminal antecedents against the present applicant with respect to the similar nature of offence in which he has been convicted in two offences i.e., Crime No. 182 of 2020 registered at Police Station Fasterpur and Crime No. 310 of 2022 registered at Police Station Mungeli, in which the applicant was convicted and sentenced with fine. However, in two other offences i.e., Crime Nos. 66 of 2025 and 91 of 2025 registered at Police Station Fasterpur, there is an interim protection granted to the applicant by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would also submit that apart from these offences, another Crime No. 194 of 2019 registered at Police Station Fasterpur against the applicant for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 of IPC, in which also he has been convicted and sentenced with fine. Further, there are three preventive actions have been taken against the present applicant and therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard on learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, considering the material collected during the investigation and the allegation against the present applicant regarding his involvement in the offence in question, the gravity of the offence and its impact of organised crime. Further, considering that there is evidence of money transaction between the applicant and co-accused Sanjay alias Sanju Sahu reflected from the bank account statement available in the case 5 diary and the criminal antecedents against him, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant Yogendra Kumar Sharma is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved