Unrelated criminal antecedents do not bar bail absent prior offences under the gambling statute.

Police, acting on secret information, raided the premises and seized four satta pattis, a dot pen and ₹1,400 from Naresh Tandi.

A case was registered under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

Tandi applied for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He had been in custody since 15 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail, relying on three live criminal antecedents under other statutes.

Whether Tandi should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in the circumstances of the case

Whether his three live criminal antecedents, none under the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, warranted refusal of bail

The application was made under Section 483 of the BNSS, which the Court invoked to consider regular bail.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The Court identified no precedent or further statutory test; it assessed the nature and gravity of the allegation, the applicant’s relevant antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody and likely time to conclude the trial.

The Court considered the allegation and noted that, although Tandi had three live criminal antecedents, none concerned the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

It also took account of the filed charge-sheet, his custody since 15 June 2026 and the likelihood that trial would take further time.

On those circumstances, the Court found that he was entitled to bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.