Fatte Singh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - 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)

¶32

--- Petitioner(s)

¶33

Versus

¶34

3

¶35

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶36

--- Respondent(s)

¶37

MCRC No. 5733 of 2026

¶38

1 - Shubham Sitlani S/o Ram Chand Sitlani Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Old Bus Stand P.S. Ratanpur, District- Balod (C.G.)

¶39

---Applicant (s)

¶40

Versus

¶41

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶42

--- Respondent(s)

¶43

MCRC No. 5870 of 2026

¶44

1 - Sunny Dewangan S/o Dilip Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Dhanora, Near Sai Mandir, Police Station- Padmanabhpur, District (Revenue And Civil), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶45

--- Petitioner(s)

¶46

versus

¶47

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Ganj, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶48

--- Respondent(s)

¶49

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, Mr. Shubhank Tiwari and
	Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocates for the respective applicants
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. GA.

¶50

4

¶51

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶52

Order on Board

¶53

06/07/2026

¶54

Since all the above bail applications are arising out of the same crime number, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶55

These are the first bail applications filed on behalf of respective applicants. Applicant- Fateh Singh Yadav (M.Cr.C. No. 5470 of 2026) has been arrested on 14.04.2026, Applicant- Tulsidas Namdev @ Prince (M.Cr.C. No. 5582 of 2026) has been arrested on 17.04.2026, Applicant - Shatrughan Kumar Komre (M.Cr.C. No. 5623 of 2026) has been arrested on 17.04.2026, Applicant - Sandeep Israni (M.Cr.c. No. 5666 of 2026) has been arrested on 01.05.2026, Applicant- Masnun Raja (M.Cr.C. No. 5710 of 2026) has been arrested on 01.05.2026, Applicant - Shubham Sitlani (M.Cr.C. No. 5733 of 2026) has been arrested on 14.04.2026 and Applicant- Sunny Dewangan (M.Cr.C. No. 5370 of 2026) has been arrested on 15.04.2026 in connection with Crime No. 110/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and they are seeking regular bail.

¶56

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 a secret information that one person was indulging in online

¶57

5

¶58

betting on an IPL cricket match through mobile phones and from 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 personal search, one mobile phone and cash amounting to ₹95,000/- were seized.

¶59

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 has further stated that Kamlesh Dewangan, acting as the 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.

¶60

The investigation further revealed, from the mobile phones seized from co-accused Mandeep Singh and Babu Khemani, electronic records reflecting ID-based transactions and telephonic communications. 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

¶61

6

¶62

and IPL cricket betting was prima facie revealed. Consequently, the present crime was registered and investigation commenced.

¶63

During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of Gulshan @ Babu Khemani was also recorded, wherein he allegedly disclosed the involvement of the present applicants, Vishal Kashyap and Rohit Singh, stating that they were managing cash transactions through various bank accounts. He further disclosed the modus operandi adopted by the syndicate in conducting online gambling operations, acquiring immovable properties at different places, and the respective roles played by the other accused persons. The investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.

¶64

Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants Fateh Singh Yadav, Tulsidas Namdev @ Prince, Shatrughan Kumar Komre and Shubham Shitlani, submits that there is no incriminating material available against the said applicants except the seizure of their mobile phones. It is contended that no forensic or cyber expert report has been placed on record to establish that any incriminating data was extracted from the seized mobile phones so as to connect the applicants with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that, apart from the memorandum statement of coaccused Harsh Nagdev, there is no material implicating the applicants. Since such memorandum statement is inadmissible in evidence except to the extent permissible under law, it cannot constitute substantive evidence against the applicants. Consequently, there is no cogent or

¶65

7

¶66

clinching material in the charge-sheet to establish their involvement.

¶67

He further submits that the charge-sheet does not disclose any money trail or financial transactions linking the applicants with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and that they have remained in judicial custody since 14.04.2026 and 17.04.2026, respectively, the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that they be enlarged on bail.

¶68

Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicants Sandeep Israni and Mansun Raja , submits that, apart from the seizure of their mobile phones, no incriminating article has been recovered from their possession. It is argued that no cyber or forensic report evidencing extraction of any incriminating material from the seized mobile phones has been produced. Further, there are no money transaction details, screenshots, or any other electronic evidence reflecting the involvement of the applicants in the alleged online gambling activities.

¶69

It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and that the call detail records or alleged electronic evidence, by themselves, are insufficient to establish their participation in the alleged offence or their nexus with the other co-accused. Learned counsel submits that the applicants have been in custody since 01.05.2026. As the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶70

8

¶71

Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant Sunny Dewangan , submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant was merely an employee of Harish Kumar Nayak and was acting under his instructions. Although certain ATM cards are alleged to have been seized from the applicant, the same were in his possession only in the course of his employment and do not, by themselves, establish his involvement in the alleged offence.

¶72

It is further submitted that, except for the aforesaid seizure, no other incriminating material has been recovered either from the mobile phones of the co-accused or from the mobile phone of the present applicant. It is also pointed out that no cyber or forensic expert report analyzing the contents of the seized mobile phone has been placed on record. The applicant has remained in custody since 15.04.2026 and, in view of the likely delay in conclusion of the trial, learned counsel seeks that he may be enlarged on bail.

¶73

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective applicants and contended that the allegations against the present applicants are of a serious nature. It is submitted that the applicants are active members of a well-organized syndicate engaged in conducting online cricket betting through the website/application "3 Stumps", which is allegedly operated by Gulshan @ Babu Khemani. According to the prosecution, the present applicants were entrusted with managing and facilitating the transfer of funds

¶74

9

¶75

generated through the online gambling operations. It is further submitted that the mobile phones seized from co-accused Gulshan @ Babu Khemani as well as from the present applicants have yielded substantial electronic evidence, which prima facie establishes their active involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It is argued that the investigation is still at a crucial stage and considerable evidence remains to be collected.

¶76

Learned State counsel further submits that the accused persons have constituted an organized syndicate carrying on online gambling operations across several States, including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Goa. Considering the extensive network of the syndicate, the large number of persons involved, the use of multiple electronic devices for conducting the illegal betting operations, and the magnitude of the alleged activities, custodial investigation of the applicants is stated to be necessary.

¶77

It is also contended that the bail applications of two other coaccused persons namely Rohit Singh and Vishal Kashyap has been rejected by this court on merits vide order dated 11.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 4079 of 2026 & 4112 of 2026, therefore the present applicants are also not entitled for bail as their case is also similar to those co-accused persons whose bail applications have been rejected. Lastly, it has been contended that looking to the view of the gravity of the allegations, the organized nature of the crime, the ongoing investigation, and the possibility of the applicants influencing the

¶78

10

¶79

investigation or tampering with the evidence, the applicants do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and, accordingly, seeks for rejection of the present applications.

¶80

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the bail applications and have gone through the case diary.

¶81

Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the memorandum statement of co-accused Gulshan @ Babu Khemani, coupled with the electronic data extracted from the mobile phones of the present applicants as well as the other accused persons, and the seizure of a large number of mobile phones, cheque books, ATM cards, SIM cards and other electronic devices, prima facie indicate the involvement of the present applicants in the alleged online gambling activities. Prima facie, the material on record reveals that the alleged online gambling operations were carried out through a wellorganized syndicate having an extensive network spread across several States, including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Goa, involving numerous accused persons, multiple bank accounts, mobile phones and other electronic gadgets. The allegations disclose an organized and systematic operation involving the transfer of funds generated through online gambling, which has a wider impact on the financial and economic system.

¶82

11

¶83

Considering the gravity and organised nature of the offence, the manner in which the syndicate is alleged to have been constituted and operated, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicants. It is also pertinent to note that the bail applications of two co-accused, namely Rohit Singh and Vishal Kashyap, have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 4079 of 2026 and 4112 of 2026. Accordingly, the present bail applications preferred by the applicants, namely, Fateh Singh Yadav, Tulsidas Namdev @ Prince, Shatrughan Kumar Komre, Shubham Shitlani, Sandeep Israni, Mansun Raja and Sunny Dewangan, being devoid of merit, are hereby rejected.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶86

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2026.07.08 11:17:59 +0530

Fatte Singh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fatte Singh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramphal Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt. Maya Tiwari

Anand Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madanlal Surge Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mansingh Nishad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Verma Vs Municipal Corporation Bilaspur