Bail granted where co-accused statements were the sole link and trial was likely to be delayed.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in three cases registered under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The prosecution alleged that persons apprehended in April 2026 implicated the applicant in online betting on IPL matches; one stated that the applicant had supplied a login ID containing betting records.

The applicant was arrested on 15 July 2026. He argued that the cases rested on co-accused persons’ memorandum statements, that he had no criminal antecedents, that charge-sheets had been filed, and that the trials would take time.

The State opposed bail, relying on recoveries from co-accused persons and their allegations against the applicant.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in the three cases under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Whether the co-accused persons’ statements and the recoveries from them, considered alongside the applicant’s lack of antecedents, filing of charge-sheets, and likely delay in trial, justified continued detention.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the Court’s consideration of regular-bail applications.

The alleged offences were under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The Court applied the bail factors reflected in its reasoning: the nature of the material implicating the applicant, criminal antecedents, the stage of the investigation, custody, and the likely duration of trial.

The Court considered that the applicant had been implicated on the basis of co-accused persons’ memorandum statements, had no prior criminal antecedents, and had remained in custody since 15 July 2026.

Since charge-sheets had been filed in all three cases and the trials were likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, notwithstanding the State’s reliance on recoveries from the co-accused persons.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to be available for police interrogation when required, refrain from influencing persons acquainted with the case, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and that the trial Court must decide the cases on their merits.