MCRC/9725/2026 of MANISH ASARANI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 1 November 2026

1. The present is the third bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh disclosing the complete details of criminal antecedents of the applicant vide order dated 06.04.2026 (wrongly typed as 06.04.2025) passed in MCRC No. 2771 of 2026. The second bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 11.05.2026, passed in MCRC No. 4091 of 2026. Hence this third bail application.

2. The applicant has filed the present regular bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who has been arrested on 19.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 71/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur, for the offences punishable under Section 112(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.02.2026, the police of Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, while on patrolling duty, received secret information that a person was engaged in online gambling through a mobile phone near Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted and co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav was arrested. During interrogation, he disclosed that the present applicant, Manish Aasrani, a resident of Kanker, had provided him the IDs of “Bet Only 777.com” and “Ganpati Book”, and that one Neeraj Ranglani had provided the ID of “All Panel 777 Now”, through which online gambling activities were being carried out. From the possession of co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav, one mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs. 25,000/- were seized. Thereafter, the offence was registered and, during investigation, the present applicant was arrested. During interrogation, the applicant disclosed that he, along with other co-accused persons, was engaged in online gambling activities and that he had provided the ID of “Bet Only 777.com” to Arun Kumar Yadav. He further disclosed that he used to pay Rs. 30,000/- to him for operating the online gambling activities and had also provided his own mobile number 7869213019 for operating WhatsApp in relation thereto. He also disclosed a money transaction of Rs. 3,000/- made on 29.01.2026. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. From the possession of the present applicant, one mobile phone bearing mobile number 9959681080 was seized, in which a betting application logged in under the name “Power Exchange”, having login ID “PW60MJ” and password “manish12”, was found. Further, from the gallery of the said mobile phone, details regarding the transfer of Rs. 3,000/- by Sandeep Yadav on 21.01.2026 were also found.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, in the present case the applicant has been arrested on 19.02.2026 and thereafter trial of the case against the present applicant was at the verge of conclusion, however, during pendency of trial against the present applicant, the co-accused Neeraj Ranglani @ Golu was arrested and a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him on 08.09.2026 and the said supplementary charge sheet was also connected with the case of the present applicant and the charges against him was framed on 09.09.2026 and the trial against him was again started from the beginning. The application for separation of the trial against the present applicant and the co-accused has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2026. Thereby the applicant is required to face the trial again till the completion of recording evidence against co-accused Neeraj Ranglani @ Golu. The bail application of the applicant though has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.09.2026, passed in SLP (Crl) No. 12679 of 2026, but the said rejection was on the ground that the trial is on the verge of completion, however the trial is restarted on the arrest of co-accused. Except the memorandum statement of other co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav, there is no other incriminating evidence against the applicant available in the case. The co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav has already been released on bail by the learned trial Court. Though the applicant is having certain criminal antecedents, however out of 7 criminal antecedents, he has been acquitted in 5 cases and 2 cases are still pending for its consideration. The alleged offences are punishable with maximum punishment of 7 years imprisonment. The applicant is in jail since 19.02.2026 and trial against the present applicant has been concluded. In such change of circumstances, the applicant has filed his third bail application, which may be allowed and he may be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that, the material extracted from the mobile phone of the applicant clearly reveals the presence of IDs relating to “Bet Only

777. com” and details of money transactions. Though at the verge of conclusion of the trial, the co-accused Neeraj Ranglani @ Golu has been arrested and the trial against him is started, but there is no chance of unnecessary delay in the trial. The second bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits vide order dated

11.05.2026 against which the applicant preferred SLP (Crl) No. 12679 of 2026, which is decided on 01.09.2026 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the said SLP with a direction to the learned trial Court to proceed further expeditiously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in its order that the trial of the case is on the verge of completion and also with respect to criminal antecedents of the applicant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion to release the applicant on bail. The criminal antecedents against the applicant are still there and 2 cases of the similar nature of offences are still pending for its consideration, though he has been acquitted from other 5 offences. He would further submit that the rejection of the application for separation of the trial from the co- accused has not been challenged by the applicant and the learned trial Court, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court endeavoring the expeditious trial of the case and therefore, the applicant does not make out any case for change in circumstances and he is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material annexed with the bail application and also gone through the case diary.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, including the case diary, and considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that no substantial change in circumstances has been made out warranting reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail. The applicant's earlier bail application has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2026, which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.09.2026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the fact that the trial was at the verge of conclusion, declined to grant bail and directed the learned trial Court to proceed expeditiously. Although the applicant submits that the subsequent arrest of co-accused Neeraj Ranglani @ Golu and commencement of trial against him have resulted in delay in conclusion of the trial against the applicant, it is evident that the said development has arisen during the course of the same proceedings and the learned trial Court is proceeding with the trial in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the applicant has not challenged the order dated 09.09.2026 rejecting his application for separation of trial. The material collected during investigation, particularly the betting application found in the mobile phone of the applicant, the betting IDs and the details of money transactions, prima facie indicate his involvement in the alleged online gambling activities. The fact that co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav has been granted bail or that the applicant has been acquitted in five out of seven criminal cases does not, by itself, entitle him to grant of bail, particularly when two criminal cases of similar nature are still pending against him. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available against the applicant, his criminal antecedents, the previous rejection of his bail application by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances justifying reconsideration, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, the present third bail application of the applicant Manish Aasrani is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved