1 CGHC010282592026 2026:CGHC:34669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6611 of 2026 1 - Santosh @ Raja Banjare Son Of Sundar Banjare, Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Mahasati Ward Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 06/08/2026 The applicant, who was arrested on 02.07.2026 in connection with Crime No. 180/2026 registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of 2 the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, has preferred the present application seeking regular bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.06.2026, the police of Police Station Bhatapara received secret information that near Atal Parisar, Ismail Ward, Bhatapara, co-accused Ravi Pathari was indulging in online gambling through his mobile phone. Acting on the said information, the police conducted a raid and apprehended the co- accused. During interrogation, the co-accused disclosed that he was engaged in online gambling along with the present applicant and also furnished the mobile phone number of the applicant. The mobile phone of the co-accused, though without a SIM card, was seized, and his memorandum statement was recorded wherein he disclosed the involvement of the present applicant. The WhatsApp chats extracted from the seized mobile phone allegedly revealed the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged online gambling activities. Upon 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 in the case. It is contended that there is no cogent or clinching evidence against the applicant and that his implication rests solely on the memorandum statement of co- accused Ravi Pathari. It is further submitted that no mobile phone has been seized from the possession of the applicant and that the memorandum statement of a co-accused is inadmissible in evidence against the present applicant. It is submitted that the screenshots extracted from the mobile phone of the co-accused do not establish the 3 involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.07.2026; the investigation has concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed and therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that sufficient incriminating material has been extracted from the mobile phone of co-accused Ravi Pathari indicating the involvement of the present applicant in online gambling activities along with the co-accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents of a similar nature and is a habitual offender therefore he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and further taking into account that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents of a similar nature, coupled with the manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the investigating agency, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.10 15:02:27 +0530