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

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

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

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

The applicants were arrested between May and July 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The High Court of Chhattisgarh accordingly rejected all the bail applications