Chhattisgarh HC Denies Bail In Online Gambling Case, Calls It Organised Crime Impacting Economy

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant bail to four accused arrested in connection with an alleged online gambling racket, observing that such operations constitute organised crime with far-reaching economic consequences. While rejecting the first bail applications, the Court held that the material collected during investigation, including electronic devices, linked bank accounts and screenshots, disclosed sufficient prima facie involvement at this stage.

Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “Online gambling is an organized crime having various facets and a significant impact on the economy of the country.”

The four applicants were arrested on February 28, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2026 registered at New Rajendra Nagar Police Station, Raipur, under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court heard three connected bail applications together because they arose from the same criminal case.

According to the prosecution, police received secret information during patrol duty on February 25 that two men travelling in a white Baleno car were accepting online bets on a cricket tournament through betting platforms. Acting on the tip-off, officers intercepted the vehicle and allegedly recovered multiple mobile phones, ATM cards, passbooks and cash from the two occupants, Shaiky Darda and Prateek Kumar Vadhwani. Investigators claimed the seized phones contained betting platforms, screenshots and records relating to online gambling activities.

The prosecution further alleged that the two arrested men disclosed the names of several associates during their memorandum statements and revealed that payments were routed through WhatsApp groups while associates operated from Goa. During investigation, police allegedly found that several bank accounts belonging to different persons were linked with the mobile numbers used by the accused. Based on the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against seven accused, including the present applicants.

The Court recorded that investigators seized one mobile phone from Prakashchand Miri, one laptop, one electronic notebook, sixteen mobile phones and a Wi-Fi router from Dhananjay Kumar Vaishnav, and two laptops, seventeen mobile phones and one Wi-Fi router from Saket Jagwani.

Appearing for Prakashchand Miri, Dhananjay Kumar Vaishnav and Pramod Kumar Orke, Advocate Anchala Rathore argued that the prosecution had no legally admissible material except the memorandum statement of a co-accused. Counsel submitted that no evidence established the applicants' involvement in financial transactions or participation in any online gambling syndicate. It was also argued that the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial would take considerable time.

Advocate Santosh Kumar Pandey, appearing for Saket Jagwani, similarly argued that nothing incriminating was extracted from his client's mobile phone and that no bank transactions linked him to the alleged gambling activities. He contended that no custodial interrogation was required and highlighted the absence of criminal antecedents.

Opposing the pleas, Panel Lawyer Vikhyat Arora argued that electronic material, bank account links and screenshots collected during investigation demonstrated that the accused formed a coordinated syndicate operating an online gambling network. He submitted that numerous mobile phones, ATM cards and bank accounts were interconnected, reflecting an organised structure created to facilitate online betting transactions. According to the State, the investigation had uncovered sufficient prima facie material showing the applicants' involvement, making them undeserving of the discretionary relief of bail at this stage of the proceedings.

After examining the charge-sheet and hearing both sides, the Court concluded that the allegations, recoveries and investigation material were sufficient to deny bail. Holding that the gravity of the alleged offence weighed against the applicants, the Court said, “In view of the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the applicants are involved in the alleged offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail,” and rejected all four bail applications.

Case Title: Prakashchand Miri v. State Of Chhattisgarh with connected matters

Date of Order: June 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal