Thursday, 5 November 2026

Former Maoist-controlled forest area turns into cockfight gambling den

RAIPUR: Tents, music, food and cars. Then came the roosters and the bets running into lakhs. Once a Maoist-controlled stretch of forest in Bastar, the remote terrain had acquired a different notoriety - an interstate cockfight gambling carnival attracting punters from across Chhattisgarh and neighbouring Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.Police busted the den near Raiguda village under Bhadrakali police station limits deep inside Bijapur district on Nov 3, catching 156 people and seizing more than Rs 20 lakh, 47 four-wheelers and 12 mobile phones.Acting on intelligence inputs about large-scale betting being organised under the cover of traditional cockfights, police cordoned off the forest site before moving in. The sudden arrival triggered panic, with several participants attempting to flee. Join conversation View All Comments → Share your thoughts in the comments Insightful Agree Disagree Skeptical Concerning Promising Worth Reading Big Development Post Comment Be respectful · TOI community guidelines However, 156 people were rounded up.The crackdown, described as one of the biggest gambling busts in Bastar, came before Diwali, when police step up surveillance against illegal betting. These forests have traded the terror of gunfights for the frenzy of cockfights. The Maoists are gone, but a new battleground has taken their place, with lakhs riding on roosters battling to the death.

Times of India · By RASHMI DROLIA

2 hours ago · 1 min read★ 3.7 trust

RAIPUR: Tents, music, food and cars. Then came the roosters and the bets running into lakhs. Once a Maoist-controlled stretch of forest in Bastar, the remote terrain had acquired a different notoriety - an interstate cockfight gambling carnival attracting punters from across Chhattisgarh and neighbouring Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.Police busted the den near Raiguda village under Bhadrakali police station limits deep inside Bijapur district on Nov 3, catching 156 people and seizing more than Rs 20 lakh, 47 four-wheelers and 12 mobile phones.Acting on intelligence inputs about large-scale betting being organised under the cover of traditional cockfights, police cordoned off the forest site before moving in. The sudden arrival triggered panic, with several participants attempting to flee. Join conversation View All Comments → Share your thoughts in the comments Insightful Agree Disagree Skeptical Concerning Promising Worth Reading Big Development Post Comment Be respectful · TOI community guidelines However, 156 people were rounded up.The crackdown, described as one of the biggest gambling busts in Bastar, came before Diwali, when police step up surveillance against illegal betting. These forests have traded the terror of gunfights for the frenzy of cockfights. The Maoists are gone, but a new battleground has taken their place, with lakhs riding on roosters battling to the death.

Read the full story at Times of India.

More stories

Umar, Sharjeel move SC for bail

. NEW DELHI: Referring to the contradictory orders given by Supreme Court in the matter of bail to the accused on the ground of delay in trial and long incarceration for UAPA offences, which have been referred to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement, former student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have moved SC for bail in 2020 Delhi riots cases.The accused submitted that two co-accused, including Tasleem Ahmed, were granted bail by SC on the grou-nd that determination of the issues by the larger bench would take time, and they could not be made to suffer continued incarceration. Join conversation View All Comments → Share your thoughts in the comments Insightful Agree Disagree Skeptical Concerning Promising Worth Reading Big Development Post Comment Be respectful · TOI community guidelines Seeking parity with the co-accused, Sharjeel Imam, who has already spent six years and nine months in custody, said in his petition, filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, that two co-accused in the same FIR were released on interim bail by the court on May 22 under a principle which applies to him in greater degree.The accused moved SC after their plea for bail was rejected by the trial court and Delhi High Court on the ground that the apex court had purportedly set a deadline of Jan 5, 2027, for them to file a bail petition.The petition asked "whether the principle recognised by this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State order dated 22.05.2026, that an accused cannot be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement, can be withheld from the petitioner alone by reference to the role attributed to him, when the question referred to concerns the correctness of the very judgment which declined his bail and relief in Tasleem Ahmed case was granted without any examination of role?"It further argued, "Whether liberty reserved by this Court in a judgment declining bail, to renew the prayer for bail at a defined point, operates as a bar upon the statutory jurisdiction of the Special Court and of the High Court to consider an application for bail founded on supervening circumstances be-fore that point, when the same paragraph of the judgment holds that pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to continue without regard to the progress of the trial and that Article 21 operates as a continuing check against continued incarceration without substantial progress of the trial?"

Times of India·2 hours ago·2 min read

SC cracks down on delayed arrests, says 24-hour clock starts from detention

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Thursday ruled that the constitutional mandate of producing an arrestee before a magistrate within 24 hours starts the moment one is detained for interrogation and not from the time when formal arrest is made by an investigating agency, since the liberty of a person is curtailed when one is detained.Noting that no artificial distinction should be created between detention and arrest, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar quashed the verdicts of high courts which had held that the 24-hour period starts only after formal arrest and not during antecedent detention necessitated by statutory procedure of seizure. Article 22(2) mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in custody has to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest."Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for enquiry and investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Article 22(2) does not sanction creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigating purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such buffer zone is unconstitutional. Join conversation View All Comments → Share your thoughts in the comments Insightful Agree Disagree Skeptical Concerning Promising Worth Reading Big Development Post Comment Be respectful · TOI community guidelines .." the bench said.As it is common practice for police to record formal arrest much later, sometimes even a day after detaining a person for interrogation, Supreme Court's order would serve as a check on the police and other investigating agencies. The court also noted that its order was meant to eliminate custodial violence, which unfortunately takes place during the time when a person is under detention and not shown as formally arrested, in the process delaying production before the magistrate.

Times of India·2 hours ago·2 min read

SC: Constitution has primacy over special laws

Supreme Court of India 'Speedy trial is a fundamental right, can't tinker'NEW DELHI: The Constitution will prevail over all other laws and regulations, Supreme Court said on Thursday and made it clear that in case of any contradiction or conflict between constitutional provisions and special laws like NDPS, UAPA and PMLA, it is the former which will triumph.It reiterated that the right to speedy trial was a fundamental right and could not be violated under any law and could be the ground for bail.The bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar faulted the apex court's earlier order, which held that under special statutes such as NDPS Act, an accused's right under Article 21 (speedy trial) must be exercised within the confines of Section 37 of the Act (stringent bail conditions) and cannot be invoked solely on the ground of prolonged delay to override Section 37.The latest ruling comes amid sharp differences within the apex court over granting bail in PMLA, NDPS and UAPA cases on grounds of delay in trial, with the issue now before a larger bench.

Times of India·3 hours ago·1 min read