Yogendra Sharma @ Lal Maharaj @ Bharra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:222

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRCA No. 1947 of 2025

¶6

Yogendra Sharma @ Lal Maharaj @ Bharra S/o Govind Prasad Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Khaira, P.S. Fasterpur, Setganga, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Fasterpur, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent

¶10

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Applicant	:	Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate
		along with Mr. Akashdeep Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State	:	Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

02/01/2026

¶15

VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.05 18:47:39 +0530

¶16

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. 91 of 2025, registered at Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

¶17

2

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that, on 04.11.2025, during patrolling the police of police station Fasterpur received a secrete information that, a person is engaged in playing chit gambling near Mahamaya Chowk, village Badejalli. When the police reached there, he found the accused Govind Sonwani engaged in playing chit gambling and from whom the cash of Rs. 920/-, one gambling chit and two mobile phones have been seized. In his memorandum statement, he disclosed that on the instance of the present applicant, he started chit gambling in the year 2021 and under his instructions he is working. He stopped the chit gambling for about 4 months and recently again started. The account of their chit gambling was sent to the present applicant through PhonePay UPI of his mobile number. When the police obtained the bank account statements from State Bank of India, Mungeli Branch and ICICI Bank, Mungeli Branch, they found the transaction of about Rs. 3,20,790/- in the bank accounts of the present applicant and co-accused Govind Sonwani. The FIR has been registered against Govind Sonwani and after disclosure of the name of the present applicant, the police also searching the applicant, in which he apprehending his arrest.

¶19

Learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that, there is no evidence against the applicant that he engaged in online gambling with other co-accused. 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

¶20

3

¶21

the offence in question. The applicant is not connected with the other co-accused person. The name of the applicant only appears in the memorandum statement of co-accused Govind Sonwani, which is not the incriminating piece of evidence. He would also submit that the applicant is having various business activities in the village and have transactions of money to various persons and the transaction between the applicant and Govind Sonwani cannot be said to be the transaction of money obtained through chit gambling. He would further submit that against the police atrocities, the applicant had filed a WPCR No. 544 of 2025 challenging the memo dated 25.08.2025, by which the police asked the details of properties of the applicant from Tahsildar, Mungeli and also prayed for conducting the fair investigation in the offence of Crime Nos. 119/2025, 120/2025, 160/2025, 301/2025 and 357/2025 registered at police station Lalpur for the offence of the Gambling Prohibition Act. The said WPCR No. 544 of 2025 has been disposed of 03.12.2025 as having become infructuous. In the said writ petition, the present applicant had pleaded about the police atrocities against him and for that reason the police trying to arrest the applicant in any cost. He would further submit that there was an allegation of encroachment over the government land and constructing a shop thereon along with other villagers and only the shop of the applicant has been demolished and other encroachments have not been touched by the authorities concerned, which clearly demonstrate by the photographs annexed with the bail application and mala fide against the present applicant. It is also submitted by him that the offence under Section 6 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 has been registered,

¶22

4

¶23

which is not applicable in the case against the applicant. He would also submit that the FIR against co-accused Govind Sonwani was registered on 04.11.2025 and his memorandum statement was recorded and within a short span of time i.e. on 11.11.2025, he has been declared absconding and proclamation has been published against him. He would further submit that though there are some previous criminal antecedents against the applicant, but they are prior to 2022 and have been disposed of. He is having good reputation in the society and community, and therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶24

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 Govind Sonwani, the name of the present applicant appears that he engaged in playing chit gambling on the instance of the present applicant Yogendra Sharma @ Lal Maharaj @ Bharra. The co-accused Govind Sonwani as well as the present applicant having criminal antecedents of the offence of Gambling Prohibition Act. Some of the cases are still pending and in some cases, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced with fine. She would further submit that the criminal case in the Crime No. 66 of 2025 registered at police station Fasterpur for the offence under Section 6 of the Act of 2022 is pending. In Criminal Case No. 1456 of 2021 (Crime No. 182/2020) the applicant was convicted and sentenced to fine. In Criminal Case No. 1559 of 2022 (Crime No. 310/2022) the applicant was convicted and sentenced to fine. In Criminal Case No. 1310 of 2020 (Crime No. 194/2019) for the

¶25

5

¶26

offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 of IPC, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to fine. Apart from these offences, certain preventive action have also been taken against the applicant. There is transactions of money in the bank accounts of the present applicant and Govind Sonwani, which comes to more than Rs. 3 lakhs and the said fact is established by their bank accounts statements. From the material collected during investigation, it transpires that the applicant is a habitual offender and a proclamation has also been published against him, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶27

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

¶28

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for 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 money transaction between the applicant and co-accused Govind Sonwani reflected from their bank accounts statements and other material against the applicant in the case diary and criminal antecedents against him, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. So far as the police atrocities against the applicant is concerned, I do not find any force on the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant for the reason that, the action of the police authorities against the applicant appears to be in accordance with law, as the offences have been

¶29

6

¶30

registered against him and the writ petition filed by the applicant has already been disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶31