Prabhu Dayal v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 PRABHU DAYAL ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Simranpreet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Varun Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under section 482 BNSS (Earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 76 dated 05.04.2026 under Section 73 of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Section 13A of the Punjab Gambling Act, 1867 registered at Police Station- Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had taken a shop on rent, where he, in connivance with his co-accused, was allegedly conducting an illegal lottery under the guise of a legal Government lottery without possessing any valid licence or permit. It is alleged that, by indulging in the said activity, the petitioner cheated innocent members of the public by inducing them to participate in the illegal lottery scheme.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR is primarily based on information received from a secret informer, which is, prima facie, hearsay and unverified. It is further contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had rented out the premises, whereas the co-accused were the persons allegedly conducting the online lottery operations. He submits that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the operational conduct of the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency.

4.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Inderjit Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, in the Court today, and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases out of which one is under the similar provision and, therefore, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitoner is invovled in two more cases out of which one is under the similar provision, the custodial interrogation of the

-3petitioner is required. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

02.07.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No