1 2026:CGHC:18806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 529 of 2026 Golu Alias Niraj Kumar Ranglani S/o. Purshottam Ranglani Aged About 35 Years R/o. Near Dream Plaza, Amlidih, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. The present is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 71 of 2026, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.01 20:29:20 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 05.02.2026, while patroling, on a secrete information being received by the police that a person is engaged in playing online gambling through his mobile phone near Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur, the police conducted raid and found Arun Kumar Yadav (co-accused). He disclosed to the police that he along with Manish Asrani and Golu @ Neeraj Ranglani (present applicant) are running the Ganpati Book Online Platform and made available the ID in the name of betonly777.com and allpenal777.now to the persons for online gambling. From his possession one mobile phone and cash of Rs. 2,500/- has been seized. FIR has been registered, in which the applicant is apprehending his arrest. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, there is no evidence against the applicant that he engaged in online gambling with other co-accused persons. Neither any electronic evidence nor any direct evidence or any incriminating material seized against the present applicant, which connects him with the offence in question. Even through the mobile phone of the co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav, his involvement is not there with the offence in question. The applicant is not connected with the other co-accused persons. Except for the memorandum statement of the co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav, there is no other incriminating material against the applicant to implicate him in the offence in question. Even, there is no bank transaction details or any electronic evidence extracted from the mobile phone of the co-accused. The applicant is having good reputation in the locality and the society. He is ready to abide all the 3 directions and conditions, which may be imposed upon him while granting anticipatory bail and he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that, in the memorandum statement of co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav, the name of the present applicant appears that he is engaged in playing online gambling through the betting app of betonly777.com and allpenal777.now and they are running Ganpati Book Online Betting Platform. He would also submit that from the memorandum statement of one Arun Kumar Yadav, who is also a co- accused in the present case, the involvement of the present applicant is also there that the accused persons including the present applicant prepared a syndicate and engaged in playing online gambling. The statement of the witnesses Safir Ahmad and Pankaj Chelak, in whose presence the accused Arun Kumar Yadav disclosed about the involvement of the accused persons. From the mobile phone of Arun Yadav the relevnt data was extracted, which pointed toward involvement of the applicant in the offence. He would also submit that the regular bail application of the co-accused Manish Asrani has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2025, passed in MCRC No. 2771 of 2026, therefore, the present is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, considering the material collected during the investigation and the allegation against the present applicant regarding his involvement in the offence in question, gravity of the offence and its impact of organized crime, further considering the statement of Safir Ahmad and Pankaj Chelak, the screen shot of the mobile phone available in the case diary and further that regular bail application of co-accused Manish Asrani has been rejected by this Court on 06.04.2025, passed in MCRC No. 2771 of 2026, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The ground of medical treatment of the old aged parents of the applicant also does not entitled him for anticipatory bail, as from perusal of the medical documents annexed with the bail application through the covering memo dated 01.04.2026, the same appears to be related to their daily routine checkup. Therefore, I do not find it to be sufficient to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application filed by applicant Golu @ Neeraj Kumar Ranglani is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved