1 CGHC010266162026 2026:CGHC:32145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6518 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Jaiswal S/o Gangaram Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 107, Ward No. 11, Mahamaya Para Baigna, District- Mungeli (C.G.) At Present R/o Kundrapara, Tifra Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Richa Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 27/07/2026 The applicant has preferred the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of 2 regular bail. The applicant was arrested on 11.06.2026 in connection with Crime No. 432/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.06.2026, acting upon secret information, the police conducted a raid near Bhairav Baba Mandir, Tifra, Bilaspur, where the applicant was allegedly found indulging in chit gambling. During the course of the raid, the applicant's mobile phone was seized, from which certain screenshots allegedly relating to chit gambling were extracted. A sum of ₹1950/- was also seized from his possession. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no incriminating material has been recovered from the applicant's mobile phone and that the prosecution case rests solely upon screenshots allegedly extracted therefrom, which, by themselves, do not constitute legally admissible evidence in the absence of compliance with the statutory requirements governing electronic records. It is further submitted that, apart from the said screenshots, there is no independent material on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 11.06.2026, the investigation has been concluded, and the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is also urged that the alleged offences are triable by the 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class. Though three criminal cases pertaining to the years 2018, 2019 and 2022 have been registered against the applicant, the same, by themselves, cannot constitute a ground to deny the relief of bail. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is a habitual offender, having two other criminal cases of a similar nature registered against him. It is, therefore, contended that having regard to his criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material collected during the course of investigation, the fact that the investgiation has been concluded and the charge sheet has been filed, the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 11.06.2026, and the offences alleged are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the conclusion of the trial is likely to consume considerable time, though three criminal cases pertaining to the years 2018, 2019 and 2022 have been registered against the applicant, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the 4 prosecution case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court subject to the following conditions:- (i) 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. (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.28 17:26:16 +0530