1 CGHC010344702026 2026:CGHC:39251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8258 of 2026 Raghuveer Verma S/o Faguram Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Baiharsari, Out Post - Pondi, Police Station - Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Out Post - Pondi, Police Station - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 57/2026 registered at Police Station- Bodla, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 6 & 7 of the C.G. Gambling Prohibition Act. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.09.07 17:56:00 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.05.2026, the police personnel of Police Station Bodla, Outpost Pondi, received credible secret information that the applicant, a resident of Village Beharsari, was engaged in conducting online cricket betting through mobile phones with the intent of deriving unlawful pecuniary gain. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted at the specified location. Upon examination of the applicant's mobile phone, two applications relating to online cricket betting were found installed, and the applicant was allègedly found to be actively participating in online cricket betting through the said applications. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 27.07.2026, considering the gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation indicating the applicant’s involvement in the alleged organised online gambling syndicate, and the financial transactions linked with the co-accused. He further submits that this second bail application is on the ground that the applicant has remained in custody since 24.05.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the trial is progressing slowly and only 03 out of 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, and the deposition of PW-03, Lade Constable in whose presence the seizure was conducted, does not support the prosecution case 3 regarding seizure of any objectionable article. Hence this second bail application for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the second bail application and submits that there is no substantial change in the circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s prayer for bail. The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and the material collected during investigation indicates his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that merely because the charge-sheet has been filed and some witnesses have been examined, the applicant is not entitled to bail, particularly when the earlier bail application has already been rejected on merits. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that no substantial change in circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court after rejection of the applicant’s earlier bail application on merits vide order dated 27.07.2026 so as to warrant reconsideration of his prayer for bail. Accordingly, this second bail application, being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected. - Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Manpreet