Bail refused for organized online gambling syndicate members citing prima facie evidence of nationwide operations.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity with co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court

The court held

The Court held that given the prima facie evidence of the applicants' involvement in a nationwide gambling syndicate and the nature of the material found in the charge sheet, they are not entitled to bail

It also directed

The High Court of Chhattisgarh accordingly rejected all the bail applications

01Facts

On May 5, 2025, police in Bhatapara received information regarding online gambling and IPL cricket betting.

¶ 3

A raid led to the arrest of co-accused Gourav Hablani, who disclosed a network involving various online betting platforms (Allpanelexch.app, goexch09.com)

¶ 3

Subsequent memorandum statements from Hablani and another co-accused, Aman Dewangan, implicated the current applicants

¶ 3

The applicants were arrested between May and July 2025

¶ 2

During the investigation, police seized a significant number of mobile phones, laptops, SIM cards, tablets, bank passbooks, and ATM cards from the applicants

¶ 5

The applicants moved for regular bail, arguing that the case against them relied solely on inadmissible memorandum statements, that no incriminating data was extracted from their devices, and that the Supreme Court had granted bail to co-accused Gaurav Hablani and Deepak Sablani

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity with co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court

¶ 4

ii.2. Whether the recovery of electronic gadgets and banking documents constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence of involvement in an organized crime syndicate to warrant the continued detention of the applicants

¶ 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

¶ 2

It further applied Section 42(2) of the Telecommunication Act and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act

¶ 2

The court relied on the principle that the seriousness of the offence and the existence of a nationwide criminal network are critical factors in bail adjudication, as demonstrated by the prior rejection of bail for co-accused Aman Dewangan and Anurag Tiwari

¶ 5 & 7

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318 Section 319 Section 336 Section 338 Section 340 Section 238 Section 111

Telecommunications Act, 2023. Section 42

Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the applicants' plea for parity, observing that the allegations against those granted bail by the Supreme Court were distinct from the present applicants

¶ 5

The Court emphasized the "syndicate" nature of the operation, noting that the applicants were allegedly part of an organized network spanning the country

¶ 5 & 7

While the applicants argued that memorandum statements are inadmissible, the Court highlighted the extensive physical recoveries—including multiple mobile phones, laptops, and third-party bank passbooks—seized from the applicants’ possession as prima facie evidence of active participation

¶ 5

The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the second bail application of co-accused Aman Dewangan had recently been rejected by the same Court, underscoring the gravity of the organized crime

¶ 5 & 7