Filing of a chargesheet and co-accused’s bail did not justify second bail after merits rejection.

The applicant was arrested on 12 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 218/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 4 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022; Sections 111, 61(2), 3(5), 336(3) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in an online cricket-betting network operated through the “Line Guru” application, facilitated transactions through third-party accounts, and maintained contact with other accused persons

Cash, mobile phones and other articles were seized during the investigation, and the applicant’s call-detail records allegedly showed frequent communication with co-accused persons

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 20 July 2026.

In the present second bail application, he relied on the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet on 20 August 2026 and the grant of bail to co-accused Sanu Beriwal on 7 September 2026 as changed circumstances

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the applicant’s alleged 20 criminal antecedents and the earlier rejection on merits

1. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet after rejection of the first bail application constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s claim for regular bail?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sanu Beriwal, despite the seriousness of the allegations, prima facie material, and his criminal antecedents?

3. Whether, considering the rejection of the earlier bail application on merits and the applicant’s 20 criminal antecedents, the second bail application should be allowed?

The Court applied the statutory framework governing regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while considering the offences alleged under Sections 4 and 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022; Sections 111, 61(2), 3(5), 336(3) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act

The Court proceeded on the principle that a second bail application is maintainable only where there is a substantial or relevant change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier application, and that such reconsideration remains subject to the gravity of the offence, the prima facie material, the applicant’s antecedents, and the reasons for the earlier rejection

The Court also considered the principles of parity and consistency in bail adjudication, but treated parity as dependent upon comparable facts and circumstances

The Court acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that a co-accused had been granted bail after rejection of the applicant’s first application

However, it did not regard these circumstances as sufficient to overcome the factors previously operating against the applicant.

The case diary contained prima facie material alleging the applicant’s active involvement in an organised online-gambling network, including witness statements, alleged money transactions, seizures, and call-detail records connecting him with other accused persons

The Court further gave significant weight to the fact that the first bail application had been rejected on merits, the alleged offences were serious, and the applicant had 20 criminal antecedents

On that cumulative assessment, the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet and the bail granted to one co-accused did not justify a different conclusion.

Considering the earlier rejection on merits, the gravity of the alleged offences, the prima facie material in the case diary, and the applicant’s 20 criminal antecedents, the Court declined to entertain the second bail application on merits

The second bail application was accordingly dismissed