Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23173 (CHH)

JITENDRA BIRLA @ BABLU BILLA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4608/2026 · 2026-06-18

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:25251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4608 of 2026 1 - Jitendra Birla @ Bablu Billa S/o Hukum Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Majra, P/s Arban, District- Rohatak Haryana, Current Address - Housing Board Colony Mig House No. 45b Kohka, P/s Tilda Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P/s Tilda Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Sr. Advocate, along with Ms. Swati Kumari, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to repeat the same at an appropriate stage, vide order dated 06.04.2025 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 2898/2026. This Court, vide order dated 15.05.2026, considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant that, at the time of withdrawal of the first bail application, the charge-sheet was not filed, and when the charge-sheet was filed, ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.25 11:24:34 +0530 2 he moved the second bail application of the applicant. Therefore, the second bail application of the applicant was admitted on 15.05.2026. 2. The applicant, who is in jail since 14.02.2026, is claiming regular bail in connection with Crime No. 65/2026 registered at Police Station Tilda Nevra, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.02.2026, the police of Police Station Tilda Nevra received secret information that the applicant, Jitendra Birla @ Bablu Billa, was engaged in playing online gambling through his mobile phone on the betting platforms “777 Grand Exchange” and “JMD Bet”, putting bets on online cricket matches. On the basis of the secret information, the police apprehended the applicant at 45-B Housing Board Colony, Kohka, and his memorandum statement was recorded. A mobile phone was seized from him. In the memorandum statement, he disclosed the involvement of the co-accused, Ayush Meghani, and stated that he had provided a link to him for online gambling and also gave him the user ID "Jsr25p" and password "Birla1982". From the present applicant, three mobile phones, 20 passbooks, 10 cheque books, 14 ATM cards, 2 Aadhaar cards, one PAN card, one drinking licence, 6 account books, one dot pen, one calculator, and Rs. 1,80,000/- cash were seized. The FIR has been registered and the charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant that he is involved in online 3 gambling in any manner. There is no admissible evidence against the applicant which connects him with the offence in question. Nothing incriminating material could be extracted from the mobile phone of the applicant allegedly seized from him. He has been falsely implicated in the offence only on apprehension. Except the technical evidence, which is inadmissible, no other evidence is available in the charge- sheet against the applicant. There are no bank transaction details available in the charge-sheet to show that any amount has been transferred to the bank account of the applicant, which is the amount received from online gambling. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The final adjudication of the case will take its own time. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, and he is in jail since 14.02.2026, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that, on the secret information received by the police, they apprehended the applicant, and a number of passbooks, cheque books, and ATM cards of different persons have been seized, including 6 account books and Rs. 1,80,000/- cash. From the mobile phone of the applicant, the link of the betting apps is displayed, and the recovery details of the betting platforms “777 Grand Exchange” and “JMD Bet”, along with the user ID and password for online gambling, clearly demonstrate that the applicant is actively involved in the offence in question. From the memorandum statement of the applicant, the involvement of other accused persons has also been disclosed, and 4 thus, in such a network of online gambling and looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the allegations against the present applicant and the material collected during the investigation, and further considering the role of the applicant, the recovery of three mobile phones, 20 passbooks, 10 cheque books, 14 ATM cards of different persons and different banks, 6 papers of account books, cash of Rs. 1,80,000/-, and the disclosure of the betting platform user ID and password for online gambling on “777 Grand Exchange” and “JMD Bet”, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The material collected during the investigation that prima facie discloses that the applicant along with other co-accused persons involved in online gambling and organized the crime investigation. Their syndicate having various facets and significance impact on the economy of the country. In view of the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the applicant is involved in the alleged offence, thus, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant, namely Jitendra Birla @ Bablu Billa is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok