1 2026:CGHC:26420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 831 of 2026 1 - Golu @ Neeraj Kumar Ranglani S/o Shri Purushottam Ranglani Aged About 34 Years (Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) R/o Near Dream Plaza, Amlidih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Line, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocate along with Ms. Neeta Tulsani Thawani, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 71 of 2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.30 18:57:45 +0530 2 2. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court in MCRCA No. 529 of 2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant, 5 witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court, and none of them has deposed against the present applicant. Out of a total of 10 witnesses, 5 witnesses have been examined, and the remaining witnesses are police personnel. From the evidence of the witnesses who have already been examined before the learned trial Court, the prosecution case is not duly supported, and nothing has come against the present applicant in their evidence. He would also submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. Therefore, he filed the second anticipatory bail application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there are positive allegations against the present applicant with respect to his involvement in the offence in question and, looking to the gravity of the offence and his involvement in the organized crime of online gambling by using a betting app, his first anticipatory bail application has already been rejected by this Court. There is no change in circumstances after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application. Therefore, he would also submit that the applicant has a criminal antecedent in Crime No. 561/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for the offence under Sections 420/34 of the IPC. He further submits that the regular bail application of the co-accused, 3 Manish Asrani, has been rejected twice by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2771/2026 and order dated 11.05.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4091/2026, therefore, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the material collected during the investigation, further considering the material available in the case diary against the applicant, and also considering that the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits on 23.04.2026, I am not inclined to admit the second anticipatory bail application, as there appears to be no change in circumstances. 7. Consequently, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Golu @ Neeraj Kumar Ranglani, is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok