-1- CGHC010361992026 2026:CGHC:43295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1549 of 2026 Ravindra Bajaj S/o Kishan Chand Bajaj Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Sai Dham Colony, Torwa Police Station - Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Torwa District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 06/10/2026 1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.368 of 2026 registered at Police Station – Torwa, Bilaspur (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 112 of BNS, Sections 6 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.07.2026, while the Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.10.08 18:35:35 +0530 -2- police party was on town patrolling duty, a secret information was received, that a person named Kishan Sindhi was running a betting racket in Saidham Colony. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted at the said premises, in which, accused Kishan Chand Sindhi was found engaged in gambling along with other persons. Upon being interrogated, he disclosed his name as Kishan Chand Bajaj. During raid, from possession of the accused persons, seven touchscreen mobile phones, four keypad mobile phones, one printer, 53 betting slips, ten pens, cash amounting to Rs. 50,690/-, one Scorpio vehicle, and one motorcycle were seized. During course of investigation, accused Kishan Chand Bajaj, along with the other accused persons allegedly involved in the betting activities were arrested. The present applicant is the son of accused Kishan Chand Bajaj and was residing in the same house where the alleged betting activities were being conducted. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any such offence. He has not been named in the FIR, nor is there any specific allegation indicating his involvement in the alleged betting activities. Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. Hence, he may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and -3- submits that the present applicant is the son of the main accused namely Kishan Chand Bajaj, and was residing in the same house where the alleged betting activities were being conducted. Applicant has two criminal antecedents of similar nature. Therefore, he does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation, two similar antecedents, I am not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to applicant. 7. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Sd/-/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen