1 CGHC010266142026 2026:CGHC:32143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6386 of 2026 1 - Ramayan Yadav S/o Baliram Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Radhkrishan Mandir, 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) ForApplicant (s) : Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, 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 regular bail. The applicant was arrested on 11.06.2026 in connection with Crime No. 432/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District 2 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 ₹780/- was also seized from his possession. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 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 admissible evidence in the absence of compliance with the statutory requirements governing electronic records. It is further submitted that, except for the said screenshots, there is no material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 11.06.2026, the investigation stands concluded, and the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is also submitted that the offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. He further submits that although two criminal cases have been registered against the applicant, one pertains to the year 2016 and has already culminated 3 in disposal. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and that two criminal cases of a similar nature have been registered against him. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant does not deserve for grant of bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has remained in custody since 11.06.2026, and the offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, this Court is of the considered opinion that the final adjudication of the trial is likely to take some time. Though two criminal cases have been registered against the applicant, one of them pertains to the year 2016 and has already been disposed of. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- 4 (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