The Gauhati High Court has granted bail to a businessman arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged IPL betting-linked money-laundering case, finding that the materials before it did not prima facie establish proceeds of crime connected with a scheduled offence.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that the applicant had satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court also examined the evidentiary limits on custodial statements recorded under Section 50 and the use of confessions attributed to co-accused persons.
Buy Now: Complete Tax & Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine Combo – October 2026
The judgment, pronounced on November 2, 2026, directed the release of the accused on a bail bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions. The court expressly confined its observations to deciding bail and left the trial court free to independently assess the evidence.
The proceedings originated in an FIR dated October 11, 2021, concerning alleged betting on IPL cricket matches through mobile phones and electronic platforms, including WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram.
Police registered Crime Branch Police Station Case No. 12/2021 under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970. The allegations included inviting bets through agents and using coded communications and online betting credentials.
On March 30, 2023, the ED registered ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 to investigate the alleged generation and laundering of proceeds of crime.
The applicant was arrested on September 19, 2026. After the Special Judge rejected his bail application on October 1, 2026, he approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 45 and 65 of the PMLA.
Opposing bail, the ED alleged that the investigation concerned an organised betting syndicate involving operators, bookies, agents and movement of funds through several entities.
The material summarised in the judgment included credits of approximately ₹28.12 crore and debits of approximately ₹28.03 crore in the bank account of M/s DRM Coke between April 19, 2022, and May 15, 2026. The firm was stated not to have been operational.
The ED also relied on alleged transfers from Marwet Petroleum, substantial investments by another individual, electronic communications concerning betting, and investments in clubs and properties. The applicant offered explanations involving unsecured loans and other financial dealings.
The agency argued that these materials had to be considered cumulatively. It maintained that its case rested on the alleged transaction pattern, statements and recovered records, rather than merely the size of the transactions.
These allegations were examined for deciding bail; the court did not finally determine criminal liability.
A central issue was whether the original police case continued to provide the scheduled-offence foundation necessary for proceedings under the PMLA.
The High Court noted that although Sections 120-B and 420 IPC appeared in the heading of the charge sheet dated May 31, 2024, its substantive conclusion referred only to Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act.
The Magistrate’s cognizance order dated November 5, 2024, was also confined to those provisions, which are not scheduled offences under the PMLA.
Consequently, the High Court found that the foundation for proceeding against the applicant under the PMLA on the basis of that particular FIR was missing.
The ED had argued that the charge sheet referred to the IPC provisions, charges had not yet been framed, and the applicant had not been discharged from those allegations. However, the court relied on the substantive charge-sheet conclusion and the cognizance order when assessing the status of the original case.
The ED subsequently incorporated Tinsukia Police Station Case Nos. 568/2015 and 122/2024, and Panbazar Police Station FIR No. 106/2026, into its investigation.
The court acknowledged that scheduled offences remained alive in these additional cases. It therefore examined whether the applicant was connected to them and to proceeds generated from the alleged scheduled criminal activity.
In the 2015 Tinsukia case, the court found no allegations against the applicant in the FIR or charge sheet. In the 2024 Tinsukia case, it found that the statements did not reveal his involvement and that no material establishing prima facie involvement had been placed before it.
In the Panbazar case, the ED relied heavily on statements attributed to Alok Jain concerning the applicant’s involvement in IPL betting. However, the court found no material linking the applicant to proceeds of crime arising from the predicate offences relied upon.
The court’s assessment thus extended beyond whether the applicant was named in the additional FIRs. It examined the evidence connecting him and the alleged funds to scheduled criminal activity.
The ED argued that money laundering is an independent offence and that a person need not be an accused in the scheduled offence to face proceedings under the PMLA.
Examining the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the High Court recognised that the relevant inquiry concerns involvement in a process or activity connected with proceeds derived from scheduled criminal activity.
However, the independent character of the money-laundering offence does not dispense with the existence of such proceeds.
The court found no evidence on record linking the investments relied upon by the ED to proceeds of a scheduled offence. On the materials presented, the necessary connection had not been prima facie established.
The High Court also considered the applicant’s alleged confessional statement recorded under Section 50 after his arrest and the statements attributed to other accused persons.
Relying on Prem Prakash v. Union of India, it discussed the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the evidentiary safeguards under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Applying that reasoning, the court held that the applicant’s custodial confessional statement had no evidentiary value at that stage.
Regarding statements of co-accused persons, the court explained that independent evidence must first be assessed. A co-accused’s confession could lend assurance to other evidence but could not independently serve as the primary or substantive proof of guilt.
It found that the statements concerning the applicant largely referred to his involvement in IPL betting, without supplying substantial material connecting him to proceeds of the scheduled offences in the additional FIRs.
Applying Section 45 of the PMLA, the court found reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged money-laundering offence on the materials presented for the bail hearing.
It was also satisfied that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, noting that nothing adverse on that aspect had been brought on record.
Referring to Prem Prakash, the court reiterated that the statutory conditions under Section 45 do not reverse the constitutional importance of personal liberty.
The High Court allowed the application and directed the applicant’s release on the prescribed bond and sureties.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
