1 CGHC010220732026 2026:CGHC:29509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 868 of 2026 Praveen Vaishnav S/o Rajkumar Das Vaishnav Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Karpatri Park, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 13/07/2026 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. 211 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.14 20:04:07 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.05.2026, the police of police station Kawardha received a secret information that the residential house of the present applicant Pravin Vaishnav, some persons are playing card gambling by betting cash amount. When the police conducted raid at the house of present applicant at Karpatri chowk, Gupta para, Kawardha some of the persons were succeeded to fee and four persons were arrested on the spot, from them Rs. 2,13,000/- cash and four mobile phones have been seized. On interrogation, they disclosed that they engaged in playing card gambling on the instance of the present applicant. The FIR has been registered on 29.05.2026, in which the applicant is apprehending his arrest. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the name of the applicant appeared in the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons, which is inadmissible in evidence. Except that there is no other evidence to connect the applicant with the offence in question. He would further submit that although the present applicant is the owner of subject house, where the alleged gambling was going on, however he had given the said house on rent to one Chhatrapal Rajput through the agreement dated 10.03.2024 for the period of three years and the present applicant is not in physical possession of the said house. He would refer to the rent agreement document (Annexure A/3). The police have not inquired from the tenant of the applicant Chhatrapal Rajput and has not made him as an accused. He would further submit that, even from the mobile phones of other accused persons seized in the case, no any call detail report extracted by the police to establish that the applicant had conversation with them. The 3 applicant has no criminal antecedent. He is having very good reputation in the locality. The other accused persons have been released on regular bail on the same day by the learned trial Court and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the subject house owned by the present applicant and he called the other accused persons there for playing card gambling. When the raid was conducted, he fled away from the spot and from the memorandum statements of other co-accused persons, his involvement is surfaced that he called them for playing card gambling. Huge cash amount of Rs. 2,13,000/- has been seized from the spot. The tenancy agreement is the subject matter of the trial, which is to be proved by the applicant during the trial. He would also submit that the applicant is having a criminal antecedent of crime No. 201/2016, registered at police station Kawardha for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 294, 506-B, 323 and 34 of IPC. Looking to the involvement of the applicant in the offence and his conduct, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the material collected during the investigation and the allegation against the present applicant regarding his involvement in 4 the offence in question, considering that there is no call detail report of the mobile phones seized from the co-accused persons to substantiate that they had conversation with the present applicant before the incident, the name of the applicant disclosed in the memorandum statement of co-accused persons and the nature of offence, further considering that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant of the similar nature of offence, and that the alleged antecedent is of the year 2016, without commending anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the present applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Praveen Vaishnav, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar 5 number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved