1 CGHC010363602026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8833 of 2026 Masnun Raja S/o. Naki Alam, Aged About 23 Years R/o. House No. 171, Ward No. 9, Bastipara, Stationpara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Age Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) . .. Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Karan Baharani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. This is the second bail application of the applicant, Masnum Raja under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as “BNSS”). The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2026, passed in MCRC No. 5710 of 2026. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 01.05.2026 in connection with Crime No. 110/2026, registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Sections 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.24 17:23:34 +0530 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.04.2026, while the police personnel of Police Station Ganj were on patrolling duty, they received secret information that one person was indulging in online betting on an IPL cricket match through a mobile phone and was present in his Honda City car bearing registration No. CG04/NS/5007 near Nagorao Gali Underbridge. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid and apprehended co-accused Mandeep Singh, who was found inside the said vehicle. During his search, one mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs. 95,000/- were seized. 4. During interrogation, Mandeep Singh, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he was engaged in online cricket betting through the betting application "3 Stumps" and that co-accused Babu Khemani was the owner and operator of the said online betting platform. He further stated that Kamlesh Dewangan, acting as an agent of Babu Khemani, used to collect cash generated from the betting activities. He also disclosed the names of Karan Khemani, Brahmanand Khemani, Shrikant Sinha, Vijay Pinjwani, Amit Andani, Harsh Nagdev, Vinod Nara, Akash and Rishikesh, along with their respective mobile numbers, alleging that they were operating online betting panels for IPL cricket matches from Pune, Mumbai and Goa. 5. The investigation further revealed, from the mobile phones seized from co- accused Mandeep Singh and Babu Khemani, electronic records reflecting ID- based transactions. The call and transaction details also indicated interactions between Kamlesh Dewangan and Karan Khemani, Brahmanand Khemani and Shrikant Sinha, through their respective mobile numbers. On the basis of the electronic evidence so collected, the involvement of the accused persons in conducting online gambling and IPL cricket betting was prima facie revealed. Consequently, the present crime was registered and investigation commenced. 3 6. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statements of the co- accused persons were also recorded, wherein they allegedly disclosed the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged online gambling activities. On the basis of the said memorandum statements, the present applicant was arrayed as an accused in the instant case. The investigation further proceeded in respect of the alleged involvement of the accused persons in conducting online gambling and IPL cricket betting activities. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed on 10.06.2026. 7. Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that after rejection of the first bail application on 06.07.2026, co- accused Rohit Singh has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 14600/2026 vide order dated 14.08.2026, and co-accused Gulshan Khemani has also been granted bail vide order dated 01.09.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 15905/2026. The case of the present applicant is also similar to that of co-accused Rohit Singh and Gulshan Khemani. Looking to the nature of the offence, the material collected during investigation and also on the ground of parity, the present applicant has filed the second bail application and he may be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that the allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature. It is contended that the applicant is allegedly involved in an organized network engaged in conducting online gambling and cricket betting through the betting application "3 Stumps". According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation, the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons disclosed the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged online gambling activities, on the basis of which he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed electronic records and ID-based transaction 4 details from the mobile phones seized from the co-accused persons, and the call and transaction details indicate interactions amongst the persons allegedly involved in the betting activities. Learned State counsel further submits that the material collected during investigation indicates the involvement of several persons in the alleged online gambling and IPL cricket betting activities, with the accused persons allegedly operating betting panels from different places, including Pune, Mumbai and Goa. It is contended that merely because co-accused Rohit Singh and Gulshan Khemani have subsequently been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant is not entitled to bail as a matter of parity, as the question of parity is required to be considered with reference to the specific role attributed to each accused and the material available against him. It is further submitted that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2026 and no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated so as to warrant reconsideration of his prayer for bail. Lastly, learned State counsel submits that, looking to the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation regarding the alleged involvement of the applicant in the online gambling activities, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and, accordingly, prays for rejection of the present bail application. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 10. Since this is the second bail application of the applicant, this Court has also considered whether there has been any substantial change in circumstances after rejection of his earlier bail application. Although the charge-sheet has subsequently been filed, the material collected during investigation, including the memorandum statement of co-accused persons and the electronic data extracted from the mobile phones of the accused persons, prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant in the alleged online gambling 5 syndicate operating through the betting platform “3 Stumps”. The allegations against the applicant relate to management of cash and fund transactions connected with the online gambling activities. The material available in the case diary further indicates that the alleged network involved several accused persons, multiple bank accounts, mobile phones and electronic devices and was operating across different places, including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Goa. Thus, mere filing of the charge-sheet, by itself, does not constitute such a change in circumstances as would warrant reconsideration of the applicant's prayer for bail. The grant of bail to co- accused Mandeep Singh and Gulshan @ Babu Khemani by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the specific role attributed to them and the material available against them, does not, in the facts of the present case, entitle the applicant to bail as a matter of parity. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the role attributed to the applicant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on bail. 11. Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the applicant, Masnun Raja, is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok