Filing of charge-sheet and co-accused’s bail do not warrant bail absent changed circumstances.

The applicant was arrested on 1 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 110/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, for offences under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the police raided a Honda City car after receiving information regarding online betting on an IPL cricket match and seized a mobile phone and ₹95,000 from co-accused Mandeep Singh.

Statements of co-accused persons allegedly disclosed the operation of an online betting platform called “3 Stumps” and implicated several persons, including the present applicant.

Electronic records, ID-based transactions, call details and transaction details recovered from seized mobile phones allegedly indicated the functioning of an online gambling network across Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Goa.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 6 July 2026; thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed on 10 June 2026, and the applicant filed the present second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, relying principally on the grant of bail to co-accused persons on the ground of parity.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet and the subsequent grant of bail to co-accused persons constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s second bail application?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail?

Whether, having regard to the alleged role of the applicant and the material collected during investigation, the applicant deserved the discretionary relief of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It also considered the substantive allegations under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In a second bail application, the applicant must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier application; mere filing of the charge-sheet, by itself, is insufficient where the incriminating material remains substantially unchanged.

The principle of parity is not automatic: bail must be assessed with reference to the specific role attributed to the accused and the material available against that accused.

Statements of co-accused and electronic records were treated as material relevant to the prima facie assessment at the bail stage.

The Court found that the investigation material, including the statements of co-accused and electronic data extracted from seized mobile phones, prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement in the alleged online gambling syndicate operating through “3 Stumps”.

The applicant was alleged to have played a role in managing cash and fund transactions connected with the betting activities, while the network allegedly involved multiple accused persons, bank accounts, mobile phones and electronic devices operating across several States.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and co-accused persons had subsequently obtained bail, these circumstances did not materially alter the evidentiary position against the applicant.

The Court further held that parity could not be claimed mechanically because the role and material attributed to the applicant had to be independently assessed.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged organised nature of the activity and the prima facie material against the applicant, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in his favour.

The second bail application filed by Masnun Raja under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected.