1 CGHC010268682026 2026:CGHC:32148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1108 of 2026 1 - Sahir Khan S/o- B. Mohammad, Aged About 48 Years R/o- Ravelidehi, Police Station And Tehsil Nandani, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O P.S.- Nandani, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu and Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 27/07/2026 The applicant has preferred the present application seeking anticipatory bail in apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 144/2026 registered at Police Station Nandani, District Durg, for the offence punishable under Section 4(1) of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2026, while on routine patrolling, the police personnel of Police Station Nandani, District Durg, received secret information that one Hamid Ali was engaged in online betting on IPL cricket matches near Banbard Government School. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid and apprehended Hamid Ali, who was allegedly found actively involved in online gambling. During the search, a mobile phone, cash amounting to ₹4,300/- and gambling chits were seized from his possession. In his memorandum statement, Hamid Ali allegedly disclosed that he had been participating in chit gambling at the instance of the present applicant and had transferred the gambling proceeds to him. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the present crime was registered, giving rise to the applicant's apprehension of arrest. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, except for the memorandum statement of the co-accused, there is no incriminating material available in the case diary connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is contended that no material extracted from the mobile phone of Hamid Ali directly implicates the applicant in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that although certain criminal antecedents have been referred to by the prosecution, the cases pertaining to the years 2019, 2021 and 2026 have already been disposed of. It is also submitted that the co-accused, Hamid Ali, has been enlarged on regular bail by the trial Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that, acting upon credible secret information, the police apprehended co-accused Hamid Ali, whose memorandum statement discloses the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has as many as five criminal antecedents of a similar nature, indicating that he is a habitual offender. In such circumstances, it is contended that the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material collected during the course of investigation, and further taking into account that the applicant is stated to have five criminal antecedents of a similar nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his anticipatory bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.29 11:03:30 +0530