Yuvraj Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - Shankar Sahu Son Of Mr. Devnarayan Sahu Aged About 23 Years (Age Of The Applicant Wrongly Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order), Resident Of Purgaon, Police Station - Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Applicants

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dindayal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Applicants : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

21/09/2026

¶19

The present is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection

¶20

2

¶21

with Crime No. 457 of 2026, registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, on 01.08.2026, on a secrete information being received by the D.D. Nagar (Dindayal Nagar) Police that in the house of Chhaya Soni, near Gole Chowk, D.D. Nagar the tenants are engaged in playing online gambling. The police party conducted raid at the informed house, where 03 persons were found engaged in online gambling through their mobile phones and laptops. They disclosed their names as Devkumar Sahu, Kundan Das @ Chhotu and Akash Khandekar. In being interrogation, they disclosed that they have taken the room on rent through Shankar Sahu and Yuvraj Agrawal and engaged in Oskar online gambling App, Teen Patti and Dragon Tiger gambling App. They also disclosed that the ID password of the said online gambling App was running by Shankar Sahu and Yuvraj Agrawal. From the accused Devkumar Sahu, 03 mobile phones and cash of Rs. 17,200/- have been seized. From the accused Kundan Das, 02 mobile phones and 01 internet router have been seized and from the accused Akash Khandekar, 02 mobile phones and 01 laptop have been seized. FIR has been registered and they have been arrested. In the said FIR, the applicants are apprehending their arrest.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, there is no evidence against the applicants that they engaged in online gambling with other co-accused persons. Neither any electronic evidence nor any direct evidence or any incriminating material seized against the

¶24

3

¶25

present applicants, which connects them with the offence in question. Even through the mobile phones of the co-accused persons Devkumar Sahu, Kundan Das @ Chhotu and Akash Khandekar, the involvement of the present applicants could not connected. The present applicants are only the flatmate of the arrested accused persons, who after using the name of the present applicants were running gambling activities, in which the applicants have not taken any part. The co-accused persons Devkumar Sahu, Kundan Das @ Chhotu and Akash Khandekar have been released on bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2026, there is no criminal antecedent against the applicants and therefore they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that, in the memorandum statement of co-accused persons Devkumar Sahu, Kundan Das @ Chhotu and Akash Khandekar, the names of the present applicants appear that on their instance they are online gambling activities and the arrested accused persons were employed by the present applicants for online gambling on the monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-. From the statement of the house-owner, the involvement of the present applicants reflect that they had taken the room on rent. The investigation has not been completed and custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. The other accused persons have been released on regular bail by the learned trial Court. Looking to the

¶27

4

¶28

seriousness and gravity of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶30

Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case diary of the case, it reveals that the applicants had taken the premises on rent where the coaccused persons were found indulging in online gambling activities through mobile phones and laptops. The memorandum statements of the co-accused persons specifically disclose the names of the present applicants and their alleged role in operating the online gambling activities, and it is further alleged that the persons found at the spot were employed by the applicants on monthly salary for carrying out the said activities. The statement of the house-owner also prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicants in taking the premises on rent. Thus, at this stage, the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be wholly insufficient to connect the applicants with the alleged offence. The investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicants is stated to be necessary. The fact that the co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court, by itself, does not entitle the present applicants to the benefit of anticipatory bail, particularly when the role attributed to the applicants is required to be investigated. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the specific

¶31

5

¶32

role attributed to the applicants and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶33

5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants Yuvraj Agrawal and Shankar Sahu is hereby rejected .

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶36

ved

Yuvraj Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases