Jyotibha Saudagar Gund v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
Crl. Anticipatory B.A. 924/2020
Before Justice C.V. Bhadang
Decided on December 17, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail application in a case involving online gambling

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 109, 188, 269, 336, 420)
• The Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1897 (Section 4, 5)
• The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Section 51B)
• The Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 (Section 3)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The applicant, in this case, is seeking anticipatory bail. The co-accused were caught gambling in Solapur.
• The alleged gambling happened during the subsistence of a notification under the Disaster Management Act and the Epidemic Diseases Act.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The applicant’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not initially named in the FIR. The petitioner’s brother, who is a co-accused, named him while they were not on talking terms.
• The respondent’s counsel did not contest the claim about the petitioner’s brother naming him and left the decision to the court.

Final Decision

• The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Nandita Karan Yadav, an undergraduate student at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2024.