Electronic transaction evidence and criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail in online gambling cases.

The applicant, Rohit Panjwani, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 34/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur.

On January 6, 2026, police intercepted co-accused Avinash Wadhwani based on secret information concerning online cricket gambling.

Wadhwani's mobile phone contained WhatsApp data and apps linked to gambling, and his memorandum statement implicated the applicant and another co-accused, Sagar Chetwani, as being involved in the syndicate for three years.

The applicant contended that the implication was based solely on an inadmissible memorandum statement and claimed acquittal in two prior criminal cases.

The State opposed the bail, citing digital evidence of cash transactions and the applicant's three criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now relevant provisions of BNSS) despite evidence of active involvement in an online gambling syndicate and a history of criminal antecedents.

Section 7(2) of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding electronic/organized crimes.

Principles governing anticipatory bail, where the court must balance individual liberty against the requirements of custodial interrogation and the severity of the offense.

The court also considered the relevance of electronic evidence and the impact of criminal antecedents on the judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail.

The Court analyzed the Cyber Cell report dated April 30, 2026, which substantiated the prosecution's claims.

While the applicant argued the evidence was limited to a co-accused's statement, the Court found that the extracted WhatsApp chats and bank account details demonstrated direct money transactions between the applicant and co-accused at various intervals, proving active involvement.

The Court further noted the applicant's three criminal antecedents related to gambling (2013, 2018, and 2026).

Applying the principle of parity in reverse, the Court observed that since the regular bail of Avinash Wadhwani and the anticipatory bail of co-accused Sagar Chetwani had already been rejected, the applicant did not merit preferential treatment.

The Court formally rejected the anticipatory bail application.