1 CGHC010178182026 2026:CGHC:27863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4259 of 2026 1 - Sultana Begum W/o Firoz Khan Aged About 53 Years R/o Rambagh, Dhamtari, Thana City Kotwali, Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr.Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 06/07/2026 Heard. Present is the first application for grant of bail preferred on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested on 09.04.2026 in connection 2 with Crime No. 96/2026 registered at Police Station Dhamtari for the offences punishable under Sections 6(b) and 11 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.04.2026, the police of Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, upon receiving secret information that the applicant was indulging in chit gambling near the Community Centre, Vindyawasini Ward, Dhamtari, conducted a raid. During the raid, cash amounting to Rs.1,050/- and one mobile phone were allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant. Consequently, the aforesaid crime was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no material relating to chit gambling was recovered from her possession and that the articles seized by the police merely consist accounts pertaining to grocery items purchased by her, which were erroneously treated as chit gambling records. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has sought to prejudice the applicant by relying upon her previous criminal cases, though she has been acquitted in the most of the cases. He submits that the applicant is a 53 year old woman. Though she has criminal antecedents, it is submitted that she has been acquitted in most of the cases, while in two cases of the years 2017 and 2020, she was convicted only to the extent of payment of fine. One criminal case of the year 2025 is stated to be pending against her. It is further argued that the applicant has remained SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.07 16:54:19 +0530 3 in judicial custody since 09.04.2026 and, considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents. Out of these, she has been convicted in two cases and sentenced to pay fine, while one criminal case of the year 2025 is still pending against her. It is, therefore, contended that, in view of her criminal antecedents, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and further considering that the applicant is a woman, has remained in judicial custody since 09.04.2026, that out of the seven criminal antecedents attributed to her, she has been acquitted in four cases, while in the remaining two cases pertaining to the years 2017 and 2020, she has been sentenced only to payment of a fine of Rs.100/-, and further considering that one case is pending and the trial in the present matter is likely to consume considerable time, coupled with the fact that the offences are triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application deserves to be and is hereby 4 allowed. 7. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on following conditions:- (i) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (ii) She shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (iii) She shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge