Chattisgarh High Court
Raj Chetani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:46994
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1294 of 2025
1 - Raj Chetani S/o Late Dilip Chetani Aged About 34 Years R/o Jarhabhatha,
Mandir Chowk, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
12/09/2025
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. 153 of 2025, registered at Police Station Torwa, District
Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of the
Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of
Digitally
signed by
VED
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
VED PRAKASH
PRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.09.15
18:17:37
+0530
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.04.2025, the police of police
station Torwa, Bilaspur received a secret information that co-accused
Yogesh Bodhwani engaged in online gambling on IPL cricket match
and he is coming to Titli Chowk for recovery of the amounting of
betting. On being raid conducted by the police, they arrested, Yogesh
Bodhwani near Titli Chowk, Bilaspur and from him a register has been
seized in which the details of betting and the amount of betting is
endorsed. Two mobile phones having SIM No. 7869787519 in one
mobile phone, his bullet motorcycle and cash of Rs. 1,50,320/- have
been seized from him. On being interrogation, he disclosed that he is
working for Ajay Harzani, Rahul Tarsani and Raj Chetani (present
applicant) and on their instructions, he is recovering the amount of
online gambling. He also disclosed that the amount of Rs. 7,37,800/-
which was the amount of gambling is kept in his house, which has also
been seized from Yogesh Bodhwani. The 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 co-accused, nothing has been
discovered, which indicates the involvement of the applicant with the
offence in question. The applicant is not connected with the other co-
accused persons. The name of the applicant only appears in the
memorandum statement of Yogesh Bodhwani, which is not the
incriminating piece of evidence. He would further submit that the
applicant has been acquitted in the previous offence registered against
him vide judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 795
of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and the
judgment dated 24.06.2025, passed in Criminal Case No. 511 of 2018
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, District
Bilaspur. Relying upon the order dated 05.02.2025, passed in MCRC
No. 948 of 2025, he would submit that the memorandum statement of
co-accused is not the substantive evidence and the same cannot be
relied upon against the applicant. He is having good reputation in the
society and community, and therefore, 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 Yogesh
Bodhwani, the name of the present applicant appears that they are
engaged in playing online gambling on the instance of the present
applicant Raj Chetani and other co-accused persons. The present
applicant could not be arrested and therefore, his mobile phone also
could not be seized to recover the relevant data from his mobile
phone. It is an online gambling through the electronic devices and the
interrogation from the applicant would disclose the network on which
they are engaged in online gambling. He would also submit that the
present applicant is having criminal antecedents of the similar nature
of offence i.e. the Crime No. 102 of 2018, registered at police station
Takhatpur for the offence under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling
Act, 1867, Crime No. 403 of 2019, registered at police station Civil
Lines, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 4-A of the Public
Gambling Act, 1867, Crime No. 103 of 2018, registered at police
station Takhatpur for the offence under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh
Excise Act, Crime No. 51 of 2016, registered at police station Sirgitti,
Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 34(2), 59(A) of Chhattisgarh
Excise Act and Section 4-A of Public Gambling Act, 1867, and Crime
No. 57 of 2022, registered at police station Torwa, Bilaspur for the
offence under Section 4-A of Public Gambling (C.G. Amendment) Act,
1976. He would further submit that from the evidence collected during
the investigation, the involvement of the present applicant with the
other co-accused persons in playing online gambling is reflected.
Online gambling is an organized crime having various facets and
impact upon the economy of the country. In view of the gravity of the
offence and the manner, in which the applicant involved in the alleged
offence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
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 material against the applicant in the case diary
and criminal antecedents against him, although he has been acquitted
in two cases registered against him, I am not inclined to grant benefit
of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application filed by applicant
Raj Chetani is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
