Rohit Panjwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010225132026

2026:CGHC:27574

NAFR

Digitally signed INDRAJEET by INDRAJEETSAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SAHU Date: 2026.07.06 17:34:21 +0530

¶6

MCRCA No. 905 of 2026

¶7

1 - Rohit Panjwani S/o Narayan Das Panjwani Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Jhulelal Ward Chakarbhatha Camp, Bodri, Bilaspur P.S. Chakarbhatha District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Rishabh Gupta, Advocate. For State : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

03.07.2026

¶16

1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.35 of 2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 7(2) of The Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112 of BNS, 2023.

¶17

2

¶18

2. The case of prosecution is that, on 06.01.2026 when the Civil Lines Police were in patrolling, they received a secret information that one Ayush Agrawal is actively engaged in playing online gambling in Cricket Match near Vyapar Vihar Small Parking. The police conducted a raid and arrested the accused Ayush Agrawal @ Akash. On being interrogation, he disclosed his involvement in online gambling through mobile phone since two years. He also disclosed the name of his his associate Prakash Panjwani and his involvement in online gambling. On examination of his mobile No.9131612905, chatting to various mobile numbers in Whatsapp and transactions were recovered which were taken out in the screen shot and seized by the police. His mobile phone and cash of Rs.2000/- have also been seized. From mobile phone of Ayush Agrawal, the involvement and whatsApp chatting of Shanky Saluja was also found and more than 50 chatting and money transactions were found. When Shanky Saluja was taken into custody and interrogated, he disclosed the details of their whatsapp group and online gambling. From the mobile phone of arrested accused persons, whatsapp chatting and involvement of present applicant is also detected and therefore the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in the present Crime Number. It is also the case of the police that on 06.01.2026 itself on secret information the police arrested one Avinash Waghwani @ Avi who also engaged in online gambling and he also disclosed the name of Sagar Chetwani and Rohit Panjwani (present applicant) and on checking of his mobile phone, various online transactions were detected which was through whatsapp. The applicant could not be arrested and a proclamation was also issued against him.

¶19

3

¶20

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there is no material available in the case which directly connects the present applicant with the offence in question. Except the material collected from the co-accused Ayush Agrawal, no other incriminating circumstances appears in the case. There are chatting between coaccused Ayush Agrawal and Prakash Panjwani, but involvement of present applicant is not there. He would also submit that though Cyber report of mobile phones of other accused persons discloses the name of Rohit, but said Rohit Panjwani is another person whose name is Rohit Panjwani S/o Gyan Panjwani R/o Sindhi Colony, whereas the present applicant is Rohit Panjwani S/o Narayan Das Panjwani R/o Chakatbhata Camp, Bilaspur. Therefore, merely on exhibition of name of Rohit, the present applicant cannot be arrested as he has no involvement with the alleged offence. He would also submit that the present applicant was also apprehending his arrest in Crime No.34 of 2026, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur, in which his anticipatory bail application was rejected vide order dated 01.05.2026 passed in MCrCA No.441 of 2026 against which he approached before the Supreme Court in SLP(Cr.)No.9841 of 2026 in which the Supreme Court has granted interim protection vide order dated 25.05.2026. Thus, looking to the nature of evidence available in the case, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶21

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and would submit that it is an online gambling in which the accused persons made their syndicate and conducted their activities through online mode.

¶22

4

¶23

Their activity has been from the report of Cyber experts as transaction have been made through online mode. Since the present applicant is out of reach of police persons, his mobile phone could not be seized/examined to extract relevant data from it. From the memorandum statement of accused Ayush Agrawal, the name of coaccused Prakash Panjwani was disclosed and when the anticipatory bail application of Prakash Panjwani was considered, a report from Cyber Cell was called in which the name of Rohit Panjwani is reflected in Cyber report. There are five criminal antecedents against the present applicant of the same nature. It is a huge network of online gambling which the accused persons are running through their mobile phones in online mode. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶24

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application as well as case diary.

¶25

6. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during investigation; considering screen shots recovered from the mobile phone of co-accused persons and the Cyber report in which the name of Rohit is reflected, his prima facie involvement appears in the case which is also supported through bank account details available in the case diary. Further, the applicant is having five criminal antecedents of same nature. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected.

¶26

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶27

inder

Rohit Panjwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Panjwani 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

Mohit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Madhav Bajpai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari

Shravan Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mamta Khalkho Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jyoti Thakur Vs Khilendra Thakur