Sri Deepesh Bajoria vs Union Of India
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
GAHC010224182026
2026:GAU-AS:15987
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
Bail Application No. 3190 of 2026
Sri Deepesh Bajoria , Son of Sri Lalit Kishor
Bajoria, Resident of Zoo Road, Exoctica Greens,
C Block 603, Guwahati, PoliceStation-
Geetanagar, District:Kamrup (M), PIN-781024
………Accused Applicant
Versus
Union of India , through the Directorate of
Enforcement representedby its Assistant
Director/Authorised Officer, Guwahati Zonal
th
Office-I, 6 Floor, Mainaak Towers, G.S. Road,
Christian Basti, Guwahati, PIN-781005
……….Respondent
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. T. Deuri, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Z. Hussain, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Standing Counsel
: Mr. P. Tripathy, Advocate
Page 1 of 46
- B E F O R E –
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Date on which judgment was reserved : 15.10.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : Yes
operative part of the judgment?
Whether the full judgment has been : NA
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)
Heard Mr. K. N. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr.
Z. Hossain, learned Senior Counsel/Special Counsel for the
Enforcement Department, assisted by Mr. P. Sarmah, learned
Standing Counsel for the Enforcement Department.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023
read with Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act, 2002, praying for grant of bail to the accused
applicant, Deepesh Bajoria , who was arrested on 19.09.2026 in
connection with ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 dated 30.03.2023,
registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (herein after referred
to as “the ED”) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PMLA”).
3. The facts of the case are summarised herein below:
Page 2 of 46
3.1. An FIR dated 11.10.2021 was lodged by Sub-
Inspector Anup Pratim Narah Mipun before the Officer-in-
Charge, Crime Branch Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati
alleging, inter-alia, that source information was received
that betting and gambling were going on in various IPL
cricket matches through mobile phones using various
electronic platforms, like WhatsApp, Telegram and
Instagram; that raids were conducted at the residences of
Lalit Kishor Bajoria at Exotica Greens, C Block, Flat No.
603, Zoo Road, Guwahati, and Rajesh Jain at Amrit
Residency, Kumarpara/KRC Road, Guwahati; that three (3)
persons, namely, Deepesh Bajoria , Ronak Bajoria and
Rajesh Jain were found to have invited bets by themselves
and through their agents for the outcome of the cricket
matches; that during the raids, four (4) nos. of Mobile
phones, four (4) nos. of ATM cards used as instruments of
betting were recovered and seized; that various exchanges
of texts could be traced in the mobile phones inviting bets
using passwords to keep them secret; that the usernames
and passwords to access online betting website platform
(www.skyexchange.com) were also found in the seized
mobile phones; that during interrogation of the aforesaid
three (3) apprehended persons, it was revealed that they
have been betting through Whatsapp calling and various
other means using codes; that nearby witnesses also stated
that they were involved in illegal betting and destroying the
young generation which impart negative impact in the
Page 3 of 46
society; that they have siphoned off money from many
innocent citizens by dishonestly inducing them by various
dubious means in and around Guwahati City.
Upon receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered
Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 12/2021 under Sections 120-
B/420 of the IPC read with Sections 13/14 of the Assam
Game and Betting Act, 1970.
3.2. On the basis of the information relating to the
aforesaid police case and the alleged commission of
scheduled offences, the ED registered ECIR No. GWZO-
I/06/2023 on 30.03.2023 to investigate the alleged
generation of proceeds of crime and the commission of the
offence of money laundering under the PMLA. The ECIR
was registered before the submission of the Charge-sheet
by police and the subsequent order of taking cognizance of
the offences by the learned Magistrate [JMFC, Kamrup (M)].
3.3. Thereafter, Charge-sheet No. 02 dated 31.05.2024
was submitted against the accused applicant (Deepesh
Bajoria), Ronak Bajoria, Rajesh Jain, Bikash Beria and
Nitin Beria . Although Sections 120-B/420 of the Indian
Penal Code, along with Sections 13/14 of the Assam Game
and Betting Act, 1970, are mentioned in the heading of the
Charge Sheet, its substantive conclusion refers to the
offences only under the Assam Game and Betting Act,
1970. The learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) took cognizance of the
Page 4 of 46
offence u/s 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act,
1970 on 05.11.2024 in PRC No. 2625/2024 against
Deepesh Bajoria, Ronak Bajoria, Rajesh Jain, Bikash
Beria and Nitin Beria . Other accused persons, namely,
Ajay Agarwal, Amit Jain, Amit Rara, Mayank Patni @
Mayank Jain, Alok Jain, Anup Kumar Bothra, Anil
Kumar Rathi, Praveen Kumar, Manoj Kumar Jain and
, were released from the case for want
Ashok Kumar Jain
of sufficient evidence against them.
3.4. By an addendum dated 30.03.2026 to the ECIR No.
GWZO-I/06/2023, Tinsukia P.S. Case Nos. 568/2015 dated
30.04.2015 and 122/2024 dated 19.04.2024 were
incorporated into the investigation under the PMLA. The
materials relating to these cases refer to persons, including
Banti Choudhury, Bikash Beria, Rohit Agarwal,
Deepak Agarwal, Gourab Garg, Bikash Goyal, Nitin
Beria, Binit Berelia, Pankaj Agarwal, Suprit Biswas,
Sarfaraj Ahmed and Nikhil Agarwal , amongst others. By
a further addendum dated 30.06.2026 to ECIR No. GWZO-
I/06/2023, Panbazar P.S. FIR No. 106/2026 dated
01.06.2026 was also incorporated into the investigation
under the PMLA.
3.5. On 26.05.2026, the ED conducted a search at the
residence of the accused applicant. Documents relating to
properties and vehicles, including a Mercedes-Benz GLE 450
4Matic AMG Line, bearing registration No. ML-10R-0009,
Page 5 of 46
were examined and seized; and a master copy of electronic
data, including emails and device data, was recovered and
seized. Thestatements of persons concerned were recorded
under Section 17 of the PMLA. The investigation allegedly
disclosed substantial transactions through the ICICI Bank
account of M/s DRM Coke, which recorded credits of
approximately Rs.28.12 crore and debits of approximately
Rs.28.03 crore between 19.04.2022 and 15.05.2026,
although the firm was stated not to have been operational.
The accused applicant described the transactions as
unsecured loans but did not furnish any supporting
documents, while Ronak Bajoria, brother and partner of
the aforesaid, M/s DRM Coke, stated that the business had
not been carried on owing to adverse government policies.
3.6. The investigation further revealed transfers of
Rs.5,51,68,657/- from Marwet Petroleum to M/s DRM
Coke between 17.02.2026 and 26.03.2026, out of which
Rs.50 lakh was returned on 23.03.2026. In his statement
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA on 29.05.2026,
Bimal Kumar Sarawgi of Marwet Petroleum allegedly
stated that the accused applicant had approached him for
funds to be used in IPL betting and had promised good
returns or commission. However, he stated that neither the
principal amount nor any returns were paid to him by
Deepesh Bajoria . He also stated that on instructions of
Deepesh Bajoria , he had transferred Re. 75 lakhs to M/s.
Page 6 of 46
Genil Projects LLP, Rs.1 crore to Thakkar Minaxiben
and Rs.50 lakh to
Jaydeep Kumar M/s Nandivan
on the instructions of
Warehouse LLP Deepesh Bajoria.
The aggregate amount stated to have been transferred to
and other entities was Rs.7,76,68,657/-,
M/s DRM Coke
out of which only Rs.50 lakh was returned. The accused
applicant explained that the transactions involving
M/s
represented loans carrying an expected return
DRM Coke
of 16% to 20% and offered certain similar explanations for
the other transfers as well.
3.7. The investigation also revealed transactions involving
Rishab Fulfagar , who allegedly invested approximately
Rs.10 crores to Rs.11 crores in M/s DRM Coke and money
was transferred to the bank account of M/s DRM Coke as
well asin the personal bank account of the accused
applicant without any formal documentation. It was further
alleged that, after the search conducted on 26.05.2026, an
attempt was made on 29.05.2026 to prepare a backdated
loan agreement through Ronak Bajoria . The accused
applicant stated that he had known Rishab Fulfagar for
approximately 10 to 12 years and that they had engaged in
mutual financial dealings. He further stated that he knew
M/s Genil Projects LLP, Nandivan Warehousing LLP
through one
and M/s Genil Barter LLP Pramod Kumar
Baid and had arranged approximately Rs.2.25 crore at Mr.
Baid’s request without knowing the owners or the nature
Page 7 of 46
of the businesses concerned. He also explained that Rs.1
crore was transferred to Minaxiben Jaydeep Kumar
Thakkar at the request of Pintu Soni through Bimal
.
Kumar Sarawgi
3.8. Mr. Rahul Das , a partner of M/s Pure Spirit, allegedly
stated that the accused applicant and Ronak Bajoria had
invested Rs. 2 crores in Roycee Club, Guwahati, formerly
known as Playboy and Rs.2.20 crores in a club in Kolkata.
The investigation also revealed allegations of a connection
with a bookie based in Delhi and the generation of seasonal
income from betting activities. Alok Jain, an accused in the
FIR no.0106 dated 01.06.2026, allegedly stated that he had
been involved in betting activities for five to six years. The
investigation further revealed the alleged acquisition of a
luxury bungalow at Club Nirvana, Sonapur and a proposed
acquisition of a tea garden by the accused applicant. The
accused applicant explained that certain properties
belonged to his wife, , that the property at
Mridula Bajoria
Exotica Greens belonged to his late father, Lalit Kishor
Bajoria , and that a plot at Jorhat was associated with his
brother’s wife. He denied having any property in
Meghalaya.
3.9. The digital evidence collected during the investigation
allegedly contains WhatsApp communications exchanged
between January and May 2026 concerning IPL betting,
including matches involving Mumbai Indians and
Page 8 of 46
Hyderabad, and references to the platform winner 7.io. The
materials also refer to a Sri Lankan Baccarat operation in
which the accused applicant allegedly had a 33% share
along with persons identified as “Vikash” and “Jugal”
though the deal seemed to have been cancelled later.
Certain chats allegedly refer to Ronak Bajoria having a
70% share in a syndicate. A worksheet contains the entry
“NEED TO PAY DIPESH SIR 158531” , while other
communications refer to a loss of approximately Rs. 2.8
crores in one event and to a person identified as “Happy”
in connection with settlement of betting accounts.
3.10. The investigation also revealed materials concerning
NELC, Meghalaya and an SBI account at Laitumkhrah,
Shillong, associated with Joanne June Sohtun. The
materials refer to a cash entry of Rs.24 lakhs dated
06.03.2026 in the accounts of B.R. Infrastructures and
Projects and an image of an ICICI Bank cheque. A GST
invoice issued by for Rs.3.79 lakh to
Disha Unitech
Sapphire House, stated to be situated adjacent to a casino
event, was also recovered. The call detail records allegedly
disclose frequent communications between the accused
applicant and persons considered material witnesses or
persons under investigation. These communications were
cited as giving rise to concerns regarding possible influence
over witnesses and coordination of accounts.
Page 9 of 46
3.11. The accused applicant was arrested on 19.09.2026
under Section 19(1) of the PMLA. The Reasons to Believe
for arrest was handed over to the accused applicant on
19.09.2026 itself. The allegations against him concern the
generation, acquisition, possession, concealment, layering,
transfer and use of proceeds of crime, as well as the
alleged projection of such proceeds as untainted property.
His custodial interrogation was stated to be necessary for
the investigation.
3.12. Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 568/2015 was registered in
connection with allegations under Sections 120-B/294-
A/420 of the IPC. Charge Sheet No. 128 dated 20.04.2022
was submitted and charges were framed on 02.04.2024 in
PRC No. 1040/2023 against Bikash Beria, Nitin Beria and
others. Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 122/2024 concerns
allegations under Sections 120-B/406/420 of the IPC. Cash
amounting to Rs.83,64,830/- was seized, including
Rs.10,76,300/- from Bikash Beria and Rs.8,50,000/- from
Nitin Beria . Panbazar P.S. FIR No. 106/2026 was also
under investigation against Alok Jain and others.
3.13. In his statement recorded under Section 50 of the
PMLA on 20.09.2026, the accused applicant allegedly stated
that he collected cash bets and passed the amounts to
bookies, retaining 10% of the losing amount. He also
referred to Alok Jain as a person involved in IPL betting
activities. The digital materials allegedly contain chats
Page 10 of 46
referring to losses of Rs.2,51,000/- and Rs.1,96,000/-, and
the statement includes the words, “I was doing the
betting under Alok Jain” . Alok Jain’s statements dated
12.07.2026 and 21.07.2026 allegedly refer to the
involvement of the accused applicant and Ronak Bajoria in
betting activities for five to six years. Certain chats also
refer to Bikash Beria and Nitin Beria . The accused
applicant, however, described as a friend and
Alok Jain
referred to their association in poker activities.
3.14. The learned Special Judge, Assam, CBI, Additional
Court No. 3, Chandmari, Guwahati, rejected the accused
applicant’s bail application by order dated 01.10.2026 in Bail
Petition No. 1120/2026, filed on 25.09.2026, along with the
connected Rejoinder No. 1135/2026, filed on 28.09.2026.
The order considered Section 45 of the PMLA, the
statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002
and materials placed before the Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application by the
learned Special Judge, Assam, CBI, Additional Court No. 3,
Chandmari, Guwahati, vide order dated 01.10.2026, the accused
applicant has preferred the present application seeking grant of
bail.
5. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused
applicant, submits that the prosecution under the PMLA in the
instant case is founded upon the allegations that the accused
Page 11 of 46
applicant was involved in betting activities and had dealt with the
funds allegedly generated from such activities. He submits that, for
an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA to be attracted, the
properties in question must constitute “proceeds of crime” within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, i.e., properties
derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal
activities relating to a scheduled offence. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the existence of financial transactions, substantial
deposits or withdrawals or dealings with different entities cannot,
by themselves, dispense with the statutory requirement of
establishing the requisite connection with criminal activities
relating to a scheduled offence.
6. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and
Others , reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court explained the scope of the expression “proceeds
of crime” and the essential ingredients of the offence of money-
laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA. It is submitted that the
existence of criminal activities relating to a scheduled offence is a
prerequisite for treating any property as proceeds of crime.
Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the allegations
concerning the bank accounts of M/s DRM Coke , Marwet
Petroleum and other entities as well as the transfers allegedly
made to different persons and entities, must be examined in the
light of the aforesaid statutory requirements. The mere magnitude
Page 12 of 46
of the transactions or the alleged absence of supporting
documents, according to learned Senior Counsel, would not by
itself establish that the funds constitute “ proceeds of crime ”.
7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that in the
present case, although Sections 120-B and 420 IPC are mentioned
in the heading of Charge Sheet No. 02 dated 31.05.2024, the
substantive portion of the Charge Sheet as well as the order dated
05.11.2024 taking cognizance in PRC No. 2625/2024, refers to
Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970
only. He submits that the remaining three FIRs neither name the
accused applicant as an accused nor there are any allegations
against him. He submits that since there is no predicate offence
pending against the accused applicant, no proceeding under the
PMLA could be initiated against him and therefore, his detention
under the PMLA is illegal requiring him to be released at once. He
submits that Charge Sheet has been submitted only under section
13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970 which are not
scheduled offences under the PMLA. Mr. Choudhury, learned
Senior Counsel further relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of
Enforcement , reported in (2023) 15 SCC 91 . He submits that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying on the decision in the
case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhury (Supra) wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the event the person named in
the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally
absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of
Page 13 of 46
discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case
(scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for
money laundering against such person or person claiming through
him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled
offence. He submits that since the accused applicant has been
cleared of any scheduled offence after investigation by the Police
by filing the aforesaid Charge Sheet dated 31.05.2024, no
proceeding under the PMLA could be sustained against the
accused applicant.
8. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that
the accused applicant’s name does not appear in the addendum
dated 30.03.2026 referred to in the prosecution materials. It is
contended that the subsequent incorporation of other police cases,
namely, Tinsukia Police Station Case Nos. 568/2015, 122/2024 and
Panbazar Police Station Case No. 106/2026, cannot, merely by
reason of their inclusion in the investigation, establish the
involvement of the accused applicant in the commission of the
alleged offence of money-laundering. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the prosecution must demonstrate the connection
between the accused applicant, the alleged criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence and the property alleged to
constitute proceeds of crime. The accused applicant’s liability, it is
submitted, cannot be inferred merely from the existence of other
cases or the involvement of other persons in the alleged betting
activities.Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that the
statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and relied
Page 14 of 46
upon by the ED must be considered in their proper evidentiary
context. He submits that the statements recorded during the
custody of the accused applicant are confessional statements
having no evidentiary value and the same are non-admissible
being hit by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and Section
23 of the BSA, 2023. He further submits that statements of the so
called co-accused under section 50 of PMLA cannot be a basis to
start a proceeding under the PMLA against the accused applicant
in the instant case. In this regard, he has referred to the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Prem Prakash vs. Union of
India through the Directorate of Enforcement , reported in
(2024) 9 SCC 787 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the statement of an accused if to be considered as incriminating
against the maker, the same will be hit by section 25 of the
Evidence Act (section 23 of BSA) since he has given the statement
while in judicial custody.
9. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that the twin
conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA must be applied
consistently with the constitutional protection of personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior
Counsel, therefore, submits that the application for bail must be
considered on the basis of the materials available on record, the
nature of the allegations and the statutory requirements governing
the offence and not merely on the basis of the seriousness of the
allegations. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Choudhury,
Page 15 of 46
learned Senior Counsel for the accused applicant, prays that the
accused applicant be enlarged on bail.
10. Mr. Z. Hossain, learned Senior Counsel for the Enforcement
Department, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the
present application proceeds on an incorrect interpretation of the
provisions of PMLA and fails to appreciate the materials collected
during investigation. It is submitted that the ECIR bearing No.
ECIR/GWZO-I/06/2023 dated 30.03.2023 was registered on the
basis of Crime Branch Police Station Case No. 12/2021 dated
11.10.2021, registered under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC
read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act,
1970. He submits that the investigation has disclosed an organised
betting syndicate operating through mobile phones and online
platforms, involving principal operators, bookies, sub-bookies,
agents and that the investigation has revealed the alleged
movement and layering of funds through several bank accounts
and business entities.
11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the investigation also
concerns other predicate offences, including Tinsukia Police Station
Case Nos. 568/2015 and 122/2024 and Panbazar Police Station
Case No. 106/2026. It is submitted that the ECIR was
supplemented by an addendum dated 30.03.2026 incorporating
the additional cases and that the subsequent FIR registered at
Panbazar Police Station was also incorporated into the
investigation by an addendum dated 30.06.2026. He submits that
the investigation relates to connected allegations of illegal IPL
Page 16 of 46
betting and the movement of funds and the materials pertaining to
the different cases must be considered together. It is further
submitted that the accused applicant’s contention that he is not
named in a particular addendum does not, by itself, negate the
materials collected against him in the course of the investigation.
12. In response to the contention that no scheduled offence
exists in the present case, learned Senior Counsel submits that
Charge Sheet No. 02 dated 31.05.2024 in Crime Branch Police
Station Case No. 12/2021 was submitted under Sections 120-B
and 420 IPC read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and
Betting Act, 1970. It is submitted that, although cognizance was
taken by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), on 05.11.2024 under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, the
Charge Sheet also refers to Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and
neither charge has been framed nor has the accused applicant
been discharged from those allegations. He, therefore, submits
that the accused applicant’s contention that no scheduled offence
exists cannot be accepted merely by referring to the provisions
mentioned in the order taking cognizance, without examining the
complete Charge Sheet and the status of the predicate
proceedings.
13. Mr. Hossain, learned Senior Counsel relies upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
and Others vs. Union of India and Others , 2022 SCC
, in support of the submissions relating to the
OnLine SC 929
scope of the offence of money-laundering and the statutory
Page 17 of 46
requirements governing the grant of bail under Section 45 of the
PMLA. It is submitted that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA
encompasses the processes and activities connected with proceeds
of crime, including their concealment, possession, acquisition, use,
projection as untainted property or claiming them as untainted
property. He submits that the ED has not relied merely upon the
existence of financial transactions but upon the alleged pattern of
transactions, statements recorded during investigation, electronic
communications and documents recovered during searches. He
submits that the materials collected disclose a case of
prima facie
money-laundering and must be considered cumulatively.
14. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the twin conditions
prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA must be satisfied before
the accused applicant can be enlarged on bail. Reliance is placed
upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of
India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; Union of
India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya
Prasad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306; Saumya Chaurasia
v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1674; Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486; and Gautam Kundu v.
Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj
Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16
SCC 1 . Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon Ram Niwas
Surjakhera alias Ram Niwas v. Directorate of
Page 18 of 46
Enforcement, CRM-M-55190-2025 , in support of the
contention that the statutory conditions governing the grant of bail
under Section 45 of the PMLA require consideration. It is
submitted that the accused applicant must satisfy the
requirements prescribed under the said provision.
15. With regard to the evidentiary value of statements recorded
under Section 50 of the PMLA, learned Senior Counsel submits that
such statements are admissible in evidence and constitute material
relevant to the investigation of the alleged offence of money-
laundering. Reliance is placed upon Tarun Kumar v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486;
Satender Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 INSC 217; Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46; and Amanatullah Khan
v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
1658 .
16. Mr. Hossain, learned Senior Counsel submits that the
incorporation of additional FIRs into the ECIR and the continuation
of the investigation are permissible in law. In this regard, reliance
is placed upon Dharam Singh Chokker and Another v.
Directorate of Enforcement, CRM-M-37710-2023, and
Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement and
Another, CRWP No. 8667 of 2025 . He submits that three (3)
FIRs incorporated in the ECIR bearing No. ECIR/GWZO-I/06/2023
dated 30.03.2023 are still alive wherein chargesheets have been
submitted in two against the accused persons. Learned Senior
Page 19 of 46
Counsel further submits that the bank transactions, statements
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, electronic communications
and property-related materials collected during investigation are
required to be considered cumulatively.
17. In view of the nature of the allegations, the materials
collected during investigation and the statutory requirements
under Section 45 of the PMLA, learned Senior Counsel prays that
the bail application be dismissed.
18. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered the cases
relied upon and have carefully perused the materials available on
record.
19. The case of the accused applicant, in substance, is that the
allegations levelled against him do not satisfy the essential
ingredients of the offence of PMLA. It is contended that the
Charge Sheet filed in the predicate case and the order taking
cognizance thereon relate to offences under Sections 13 and 14 of
the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970 and that the mere
reference to Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC in the heading of
the Charge Sheet would not, by itself, establish the existence of a
scheduled offence for the purpose of the PMLA. The accused
applicant has further contended that his name does not find any
place in the addendum to the ECIR dated 30.03.2026 and that the
subsequent inclusion of other police cases does not establish his
involvement in the alleged offence of money laundering.
Page 20 of 46
20. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the Preamble to the
PMLA, 2002 has emphasized the fact that the Act has been
enacted to prevent money laundering and to provide for
confiscation of property derived from or involved in money
laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. It further underscores that it is an amalgam of several
facets essential to address the scourge of money laundering as
such. It is a sui generis legislation, meaning thereby that the
legislation is a standalone type of legislation covering special
offence of money laundering. However, under the scheme of the
Act, the power to investigate under the Act has not been vested in
the Police rather the same has been given to an officer as
authorized by the Central Government under section 48 of the
PMLA. Under the PMLA, a scheduled offence is a for
sina qua non
a proceeding under the PMLA. This pre-condition is the most
important fact which requires consideration for initiating a
proceeding under the PMLA. I shall consider this aspect later in the
context of the instant case.
21 . As far as applicability of twin conditions under section 45 (1)
of the PMLA is concerned, the same has already been settled in
the case of wherein the
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) ,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provision in the form of
Section 45 of the PMLA is reasonable and has direct nexus with
the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PMLA to
combat the menace of money-laundering having trans-national
Page 21 of 46
consequences, including impacting the financial systems and
sovereignty and integrity of the countries. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court at paragraph 412 of the aforesaid judgement has held as
follows:
“As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in
whatever form the relief is couched including the nature
of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973
Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of
the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and
rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and
without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the
objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation
providing for stringent regulatory measures for
combating the menace of money laundering.”
A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India through the Assistant
Director Vs. Kanhaiya Prasad , reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine 306 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“12. It is well settled position of law that Section 45 of
the PMLA starting with a non-obstante clause has an
overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them.
Section 45 imposes two conditions for the grant of bail
to any person, accused of an offence punishable for a
term of imprisonment of more than 3 years under Part A
Page 22 of 46
of the Schedule. The two conditions are that (i) the
prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the
application for bail; and (ii) the Court must be satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not liable to commit any offence while on bail. As well
settled, these two conditions are mandatory in nature
and they need to be complied with before the accused
person is released on bail.
*
21. As well settled, the offence of money laundering is
not an ordinary offence. The PMLA has been enacted to
deal with the subject of money laundering activities
having transnational impact on financial systems
including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. The
offence of money laundering has been regarded as an
aggravated form of crime world over and the offenders
involved in the activity connected with the Proceeds of
Crime are treated as a separate class from ordinary
criminals. Any casual or cursory approach by the Courts
while considering the bail application of the offender
involved in the offence of money laundering and
granting him bail by passing cryptic orders without
considering the seriousness of the crime and without
considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be
vindicated.”
Page 23 of 46
In view of the aforesaid position as settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, I do not want to delve more into the issue of
applicability of rigors of section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. There is no
exception to the applicability of twin conditions under section 45 of
PMLA in consideration of a bail prayer.
22 . In the instant case, though Charge Sheet has been filed and
cognizance has been taken in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 12/2021
wherein, cognizance has been taken only under section 13 and 14
of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970, which are not
“scheduled offence” under the PMLA, three (3) more FIRs have
been added by the EDin ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 on 30.03.2023
and 30.06.2026 respectively. By an addendum dated 30.03.2026,
Tinsukia P.S. Case Nos. 568/2015 and 122/2024 were incorporated
into the investigation under the PMLA. By a further addendum
dated 30.06.2026, Panbazar P.S. FIR No. 106/2026 dated
01.06.2026 was also incorporated into the investigation. It may be
relevant herein to provide the respective status of the aforesaid
four (4) cases. They are as follows:
(a) In FIR No. 12/2021, Charge Sheet No. 02 dated
31.05.2024 was submitted under Sections 120-B and 420
IPC read with Section 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and
Betting Act, 1970 in the form of the FIR, but in the detailed
portion, no mention of Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC. It
mentioned only Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and
Betting Act, 1970. Subsequently, cognizance has also been
taken by the JMFC, Kamrup (M) under Sections 13 and 14 of
Page 24 of 46
the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970. No charge has yet
been framed.
(b) In FIR No. 568/2015, Charge Sheet No. 128 dated
20.04.22 was submitted under Sections 120-B/294A/420 IPC
and charges were framed on 02.04.2024 in PRC No.
1040/2023 before the leaned CJM, Tinsukia under Sections
120-B/294A/420/34 IPC against Nine (9) persons including
Bikash Beria and Nitin Beria, who are co-accused of the
accused applicant in FIR No. 12/ 2021.
(c) In FIR No. 122/2024 under Sections 120-B/406/420 IPC,
no Chargesheet has been filed as yet.
(d) FIR No 106/2026 filed in Panbazar Police Station stands
registered as PRC No. 2768/2026 against nine (9) accused
persons, including Alok Jain before the learned ACJM No. 3,
Kamrup (M). Section 318(2) of BNS, 2023 was added by the
order of the learned CJM dated 16.06.2026.
23. From the above, it is seen that three (3) FIRs which have
been subsequently incorporated in ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023,
scheduled offences are still alive there. However, the question
arises as to how the accused applicant is concerned with those
FIRs as the accused applicant has not been named in any of the
aforesaid three (3) FIRs and whether the FIRs are inter-linked and
connected.
Page 25 of 46
24. It is seen that in his statements recorded under Section 50
of the PMLA on 20.09.2026, the accused applicant stated that he
collected cash bets and passed the amounts to bookies, retaining
10% of the losing amount. He also named Alok Jain amongst the
bookies under whom he conducted the betting activities during
2021. The digital materials allegedly contain chats referring to
losses of Rs.2,51,000/- and Rs.1,96,000/-, and the statement
includes the words, “I was doing the betting under Alok Jain” .
Alok Jain’s statements dated 12.07.2026 and 21.07.2026
allegedly refer to the involvement of the accused applicant and
Ronak Bajoria in betting activities for five to six years. Certain
chats also refer to Bikash Beria and Nitin Beria . It is seen that
the recovered materials including the whatsapp chats reveal
business connections between the accused applicant and Alok
Jain , the main accused in FIR No 106/2026 filed in Panbazar
Police Station. From the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA
of the accused applicant and Alok Jain, it is clear that the
accused applicant and Alok Jain knew each other and both were
involved in game and betting activities during the IPL matches. It
is also seen that the accused applicant was carrying on betting
activities under Alok Jain.
25 . Now, the question arises as to whether statements made by
an accused person under section 50 of PMLA are admissible in
evidence or not.
Page 26 of 46
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides that no person
accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.This constitutional safeguard is imbedded in the Latin legal
maxim “nemo teneturprodereaccusaseipsum”, which means that
no man is bound to accuse himself. However, the protection
granted under Article 20(3) is conditioned upon certain facts as
have been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
decisions. To claim protection under Article 20(3), three mandatory
conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously. Firstly, the person
must stand formally as an accused of a crime at the time of
making the statement. Meaning thereby, the person making the
statement has to be named in an FIR or a formal complaint
lodged. Secondly , the factor of compulsion, i.e., there must be
presence of physical or mental force, duress, or coercion to extract
information. Thirdly , the statement or information must explicitly
be self-incriminating to the accused person.
Similarly, Section 23 of the BSA (formerly Section 25 and
26 of the Evidence Act) lays down a strict bar that no confession
made to a police officer, or by any person while in police custody,
shall be proved against him. This means that if the incriminatory
statement was made to a police officer while in custody, it is
completely inadmissible and cannot be used against the maker or
even the co-accused person. Therefore, the aforesaid two
provisions provide a much-required shield to an accused person if
he makes a self-incriminating statement before the Police. Article
20(3) of the Constitution of India provides the fundamental right
Page 27 of 46
against self-incriminating statement whereas Section 23 of the BSA
(Section 25 of Evidence Act) grants the evidentiary bar to enforce
the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution in the
criminal procedure.
26. Adding to the aforesaid, another important question arises
as to whether the aforesaid protections under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution of India and Section 23 of BSA will be similarly
applicable to statements made by an accused person under
section 50 of the PMLA since in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
authorities under PMLA are not police officers. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash (Supra)
had a detailed discussion in that regard considering the principles
and law laid down in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(Supra) and has come to the following findings:
“33. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the
statement of the appellant if to be considered as
incriminatingagainst the maker, will be hit by section 25
of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement
whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another
proceeding instituted by the same investigating agency.
Taken as he was from the judicial custody to record the
statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the
statement admissible against the appellant.”
Page 28 of 46
35. A complete reading of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary
(supra), particularly, paragraphs 339, 347 and 356
mandate us to ask ourselves the query: Is a reasonable
inference legitimately possible that, due to the
vulnerable position in which the appellant was placed
and the dominating position in which the Investigating
Agency was situated, in view of the arrest in the other
proceeding that, there obtained a conducive atmosphere
to obtain a confession? We certainly think so. The
question is not whether it actually happened. The
question is could it have been possible.
38. We have no hesitation in holding that when an
accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the
case for which he is under custody, any statement
under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating
Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason
being that the person in custody pursuant to the
proceeding investigated by the same Investigating
Agency is not a person who can be considered as one
operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe
to render such statements admissible against the
maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to
all canons of fair play and justice.”
From the above, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
after taking into account the Scheme of Section 50 of the PMLA
has come to the finding that if an accused person is under judicial
Page 29 of 46
custody or ED custody, his confessional statements recorded under
section 50 of the PMLA made before the authorities under PMLA
will be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as well as
the same shall be hit by Section 23 of BSA.
27. As far as the issue of admissibility of the statements of the
co-accused persons under section 50 of PMLA are concerned, it
has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem
that the law laid down under section 30
Prakash (Supra)
(section 24 of BSA) of the Evidence Act by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the confession of the co-accused will
continue to apply. In this connection, the observation of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash (Supra)
being relevant are extracted herein below:
“We hold that, in such a situation, the law laid down
under Section 30 of the Evidence Act by this Court while
dealing with the confession of the co-accused will
continue to apply. In Kashmira Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, [1952] 1 SCC 275 , this Court
neatly summarized the principle as under:
“11. …… The proper way to approach a case of
this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against
the accused excluding the confession altogether
from consideration and see whether, if it is
believed, a conviction could safely be based on it.
If it is capable of belief independently of the
Page 30 of 46
confession, then of course it is not necessary to call
the confession in aid. But cases may arise where
the judge is not prepared to act on the other
evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it
would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such
an event the judge may call in aid the confession
and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence
and thus fortify himself in believing what without
the aid of the confession he would not be prepared
to accept.”
Therefore, in a given case, the investigating agency is
required to gather evidences independent of the statement of the
co-accused first and then to look into the evidence of the co-
accused to lend assurance to other evidence. A statement made
by a co-accused under section 50 of the PMLA can only be used as
a corroborative piece of evidence, not as primary or substantive
evidence to prove guilt independently. It means that the
prosecution authority cannot start its case against an accused
person primarily based on the confession or incriminating
statement of a co-accused.
28. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that
an FIR No. 12/2021 dated 11.10.2021 was lodged alleging illegal
betting in IPL cricket matches through electronic platforms,
including WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram against the accused
applicant and others. On the basis of the information relating to
the aforesaid police case and the alleged commission of scheduled
Page 31 of 46
offences, the ED registered ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 on
30.03.2023 to investigate the alleged generation of proceeds of
crime and the commission of the offence of money laundering
under the PMLA. Thereafter, Charge Sheet No. 02 dated
31.05.2024 was submitted against the accused applicant and other
persons, namely, Ronak Bajoria, Rajesh Jain, Bikash Beria
and Nitin Beria . Although Sections 120-B/420 of the Indian Penal
Code, along with Sections 13/14 of the Assam Game and Betting
Act, 1970, are mentioned in the heading of the Charge Sheet, its
substantive conclusion refers to the offences under the Assam
Game and Betting Act, 1970. The learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) took
cognizance of the offences on 05.11.2024 in PRC No. 2625/2024
under sections 13/14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970.
Therefore, as on today, there is no scheduled offence pending
against the accused applicant in terms of the aforesaid Charge
Sheet as well as the cognizance order of the learned JMFC in
respect of the aforesaid FIR No. 12/2021 dated 11.10.2021.
Therefore, the foundational ground of initiating the PMLA
proceeding against the accused applicant is missing in the instant
case as there is no scheduled offence pending against the accused
applicant in view of the filing of the Charge Sheet and the
subsequent cognizance order as far as the FIR No. 12/2021 dated
11.10.2021 is concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Vijay Manadnlal Choudhary (Supra) , observed as
follows:
Page 32 of 46
“237. Be that as it may, we may now proceed to
decipher the purport of section 24 of the 2002 Act. In the
first place, it must be noticed that the legal presumption
in either case is about the involvement of proceeds of
crime in money-laundering. This fact becomes relevant,
only if, the prosecution or the authorities have
succeeded in establishing at least three basic or
foundational facts. First, that the criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence has been committed.
Second, that the property in question has been derived
or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a
result of that criminal activity. Third, the person
concerned is, directly or indirectly, involved in any
process or activity connected with the said property
being proceeds of crime. On establishing the fact that
there existed proceeds of crime and the person
concerned was involved in any process or activity
connected therewith, itself, constitutes offence of money-
laundering. The nature of process or activity has now
been elaborated in the form of Explanation inserted vide
Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. On establishing these
foundational facts in terms of section 24 of the 2002
Act, a legal presumption would arise that such proceeds
of crime are involved in money-laundering. The fact that
the person concerned had no causal connection with
such proceeds of crime and he is able to disprove the
fact about his involvement in any process or activity
Page 33 of 46
connected therewith, by producing evidence in that
regard, the legal presumption would stand rebutted.
239. Be it noted that the legal presumption under
section 24(a) of the 2002 Act, would apply when the
person is charged with the offence of money-laundering
and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is
established. The existence of proceeds of crime is,
therefore, a foundational fact, to be established by the
prosecution, including the involvement of the person in
any process or activity connected therewith. Once these
foundational facts are established by the prosecution,
the onus must then shift on the person facing charge of
offence of money-laundering-to rebut the legal
presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved
in money-laundering, by producing evidence which is
within his personal knowledge.In other words, the
expression "presume" is not conclusive. It also does not
follow that the legal presumption that the proceeds of
crime are involved in money-laundering is to be invoked
by the Authority or the court, without providing an
opportunity to the person to rebut the same by leading
evidence within his personal knowledge.
240. Such onus also flows from the purport of section
106 of the Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the
legal presumption in the manner he chooses to do and
Page 34 of 46
as is permissible in law, including by replying under
section 313 of the 1973 Code or even by cross-
examining prosecution witnesses. The person would get
enough opportunity in the proceeding before the
Authority or the court, as the case may be. He may be
able to discharge his burden by showing that he is not
involved in any process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime. In any case, in terms of section 114
of the Evidence Act, it is open to the court to presume
the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct, and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular
case. Considering the above, the provision under
consideration [section 24(a)] by no standards can be
said to be unreasonable much less manifestly arbitrary
and unconstitutional.”
(Empasis Supplied)
29. In the instant case, ED has filed an Affidavit-in-opposition to
oppose the bail application of the accused applicant and relied
heavily on the statements of the accused applicant, other accused
persons in other three FIRs where the accused applicant is not
named as an accused and some of the witnesses. Since Charge
Sheet has already been filed in the FIR No. 12/2021 dated
11.10.2021 and cognizance has been taken under non-scheduled
offences, the statements recorded by ED under the aforesaid FIR
Page 35 of 46
No. 12/2021 will not carry any value as no scheduled offence is
pending against the accused applicant. Though the ED has relied
upon the confessional statements of the accused applicant
recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, the same will have no
evidentiary value at this stage due to their inadmissibility, as
discussed above. The statement of Bimal Kumar Sarawagi was
recorded by the ED under section 50 of the PMLA on 29.05.2026
whereas the statement of Rishab Fulfagar was recorded on
16.09.2026. Charge Sheet No. 02 in the FIR was submitted
31.05.2024 clearing the accused applicant of any charge against
any scheduled offence under PMLA. Therefore, those statements
wherein though there are certain facts about investments made by
the above two persons in the IPL betting run by the accused
applicant are present, the same became irrelevant due to the
Charge Sheet filed by the police and subsequent cognizance order
passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M). This is due to the fact
the proceeding by ED under PMLA itself becomes invalid due to
non-existence of any scheduled offence against the accused
applicant as regards the FIR No. No. 12/2021 is concerned.
30 . The ED has contended that three (3) live FIRs are still there
in the same ED registered ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 dated
30.03.2023. Arguments have been made to the effect that if it is
taken that no predicate offence has been found in FIR No.
12/2021, the other three (3) remaining FIRs are still in existence
wherein predicate offences are present and since, the whole crime
has been allegedly committed by a syndicate, of which the
Page 36 of 46
accused applicant is also a party, bail should not be granted to the
accused applicant at this stage. Primary reliance has been placed
by the ED on the statements of other accused persons in the other
FIRs as well as statements of two witnesses under section 50 of
the PMLA before the authorities of ED under the PMLA.
31 . This Court has minutely examined the FIRs, the Charge
Sheets and the statements made by the accused persons in the
other FIRs under section 50 of PMLA, brought on record in the
Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the ED in the instant bail
application. Status of the remaining three FIRs have already been
discussed above.
In FIR No. 568/2015, Charge Sheet No. 128 dated 20.04.22
was submitted under Sections 120-B/294A/420 IPC and charges
were framed on 02.04.2024 in PRC No. 1040/2023 before the
leaned CJM, Tinsukia under Sections 120-B/294A/420/34 IPC
against Nine (9) persons including Bikash Beria and Nitin Beria,
who are co-accused of the accused applicant in FIR No. 12/ 2021.
There are no allegations, whatsoever, are present either in the FIR
or in the Charge Sheet filed in the FIR No. 568/2015 (PRC No.
1040/2023) before the CJM, Tinsukia.
In FIR No. 122/2024 under Sections 120-B/406/420 IPC, no
Charge Sheet has been filed as yet. In this case, one Suprit Biswas
was found involved in betting and gaming activities during IPL and
on the basis of statements of accused and other witnesses, various
materials including bank passbooks, account details of other co-
Page 37 of 46
accused persons as well as persons linked with the aforesaid
activities were seized. Statements of witnesses and accused
persons have been recorded by police. However, none of the
statements reveal the name of the accused applicant to be
involved in any of the offences charged in the FIR. No materials
could also be placed by the ED to show any prima facie
involvement of the accused applicant in the FIR as on today. No
record is produced before this court regarding any prima-facie
involvement of the accused applicant in any proceeds of the crime
till date.
The ED has heavily relied on the fourth FIR. FIR No
106/2026 filed in Panbazar Police Station stands registered as PRC
No. 2768/2026 against nine (9) accused persons, including Alok
Jain before the learned ACJM No. 3, Kamrup (M). Section 318(2)
of BNS, 2023 was added by the order of the learned CJM dated
16.06.2026.
32 . The ED has relied on the statements of Alok Jain , who is
the prime accused in FIR No 106/2026 filed in Panbazar Police
Station on 01-06-2026 against nine (9) accused persons, including
Alok Jain . It is seen that the accused applicant is not a named
accused in the FIR. Statements of Alok Jain were recorded on
different dates by the ED under section 50 of PMLA.
In his statement under Section 50 of PMLA on 12.07.2026
within the premises of Central Jail, as per the permission granted
by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), he
Page 38 of 46
stated that other persons involved in betting activities includes the
accused applicant.
In the statement made under section 50 of PMLA on
21.07.2026 under the ED Custody granted by the Special Court
(PMLA), Alok Jain , on a question put by the ED about the details
of other persons involved in IPL betting, he answered that the
accused applicant, his brother Ronak Bajoria and one Rajesh
Bajaj have been involved in IPL betting activities in Guwahati for
last 5-6 years. He also stated that Bikash Beria, Nitin Beria and
Durga Prasad Beria have been actively involved in IPL betting
activities in Tinsukia. He named another person, namely, Vikash
Agarwal to be involved in IPL betting in Guwahati.
In his statement under Section 50 of PMLA on 05.09.2026
within the premises of Central Jail, as per the permission granted
by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), he
stated that other persons involved in betting activities includes the
accused applicant.
In the statement made under section 50 of PMLA on
22.07.2026 under the ED Custody granted by the Special Court
(PMLA), Alok Jain did not state anything about the accused
applicant and he provided the details of his various movable and
immovable properties. However, no material was placed about any
involvement of the accused applicant in any proceeds of the crime
from any predicate offence.
Page 39 of 46
Similarly, in the statement made under section 50 of PMLA
on 23.07.2026 as well as 24.07.2026 under the ED Custody
granted by the Special Court (PMLA), Alok Jain did not state
anything about the accused applicant.
33. From the settled law as has already been discussed above
and taking into account of the fact that aforesaid Alok Jain was
either in judicial custody or the custody of the ED when the
statements of his were recorded by the ED, the same in respect of
the accused applicant shall not carry any substantive value. A close
examination of the statements shows that nothing substantial have
been stated about the accused applicant except the statement
regarding the accused applicant’s involvement in IPL betting in
Guwahati for the last 5-6 years. No materials could be located
regarding any proceeds of crime from any of the predicate
offences alleged in any of the remaining three FIRs, especially the
FIR No 106/2026 filed in Panbazar Police Station, which has been
heavily relied upon by the ED.
34 . A contention has been raised by the ED that the offence of
money laundering is an independent offence and the person
accused in the offence of money laundering need not be an
accused in the scheduled offence. It is contended that the relevant
consideration is his involvement in a process or activity connected
with the proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity relating to
a subsisting scheduled offence. Reliance has also been placed in
the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra). In this
Page 40 of 46
connection, the following paragraphs of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (Supra) have been relied on :
“269. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002
Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-
laundering is an independent offence regarding the
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime
which had been derived or obtained as a result of
criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled
offence. The process or activity can be in any form — be
it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of
proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted
property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in
any one of such process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money-
laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do
with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence
— except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a
result of that crime.
As aforesaid, in this backdrop the amendment Act 2 of
2013 came into being. Considering the purport of the
amended provisions and the experience of
implementing/enforcement agencies, further changes
became necessary to strengthen the mechanism
regarding prevention of money-laundering. It is not right
in assuming that the attachment of property
Page 41 of 46
(provisional) under the second proviso, as amended, has
no link with the scheduled offence. Inasmuch as Section
5(1) envisages that such an action can be initiated only
on the basis of material in possession of the authorised
officer indicative of any person being in possession of
proceeds of crime. The precondition for being proceeds of
crime is that the property has been derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The
sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the accused
named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily
being accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved
in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime. Such a person besides facing the consequence of
provisional attachment order, may end up in being
named as accused in the complaint to be filed by the
authorised officer concerning offence under Section 3 of
the 2002 Act.
35. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is seen that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in clear terms expressed that the
offence of money-laundering is an independent offence
regarding the process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained
as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation
to a scheduled offence. However, in absence of any scheduled
offence itself, there cannot be a proceeding under money
Page 42 of 46
laundering. It is settled law that there has to be a predicate
offence and if there is no predicate offence itself, no proceeding of
money laundering can happen in terms of PMLA as there shall be
no proceeds of crime from a scheduled offence. Therefore,
proceeds of crime in terms of PMLA can happen only when a
scheduled crime exists, irrespective of one is an accused or not in
the FIR or Complaint. In the instant case, the ED has relied on
certain statements of witnesses, namely, Bimal Kumar Sarawgi
and Rishab Fulfagar under section 50 of PMLA and one Rahul
Das under section 17 of PMLA wherein both Bimal Kumar
Sarawgi and Rishab Fulfagar stated that certain amounts have
been invested by them in a company, namely M/s DRM Coke.
Similarly, Rahul Das has also stated that the accused applicant
and his brother, Ronak Bajoria invested amounts in Pure Spirit &
Pure Spirits, a company owned by Rahul Das and one other
partner. It has also been stated that the accused applicant and his
brother have been involved in betting activities during IPL
matches. However, as discussed above, in the connected FIR No.
12/2021, chargesheet has already been filed without any predicate
offence against the accused applicant. Therefore, non-existence of
a predicate offence, the aforesaid statements shall carry no
evidence regarding proceeds of crime. Moreover, no evidence is on
record to show that there is a link between the invested amount
with any proceeds of crime as alleged. Further, the proceeds of
crime must come from a predicate offence /scheduled offence for
a proceeding under PMLA. Therefore, in the instant case in hand,
materials available before this Court, prima facie do not suggest
Page 43 of 46
any proceeds of crime linked with the activity as alleged to have
been committed by the accused applicant.
36. After the above discussions in details regarding the facts and
laws involved in the instant case, now, the question comes about
the consideration of the prayer of the accused applicant for bail
who is in judicial custody since his arrest on 19-09-2026. Section
45 of the PMLA prescribes specific conditions governing the grant
of bail to a person accused of an offence punishable under the
PMLA. The provision requires consideration of whether there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence and whether he is unlikely to commit any
offence while on bail, subject to the applicable statutory
framework and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. In this connection, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Prem Prakash (Supra) being relevant is
extracted herein below:
“All that Section 45 of PMLA mentions is that certain
conditions are to be satisfied. The principle that, “bail is
the rule and jail is the exception” is only a paraphrasing
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states
that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by
law. Liberty of the individual is always a Rule and
deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can only be by
the procedure established by law, which has to be a
valid and reasonable procedure. Section 45 of PMLA by
Page 44 of 46
imposing twin conditions does not re-write this principle
to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the
exception. As set out earlier, all that is required is that
in cases where bail is subject to the satisfaction of twin
conditions, those conditions must be satisfied.”
37. In consideration of the factual matrix involved in the case
together with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
this Court is not hesitant to say that the accused applicant in the
instant case has been able to satisfy the twin conditions under
section 45 of the PMLA. This Court on the basis of the materials
brought on record, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused applicant is not guilty of the offence
of money laundering as alleged under Sections 3 and 4 of the
PMLA, 2002. This Court has also considered the probability or
likelihood of committing any offence by the accused applicant
while on bail and is satisfied that the accused applicant is not likely
to commit any offence, if enlarged on bail. Nothing adverse in that
regard about the accused applicant has been brought on record.
38. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. The
accused applicant is directed to be released immediately on bail in
connection with ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 dated 30.03.2023,
registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions
of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 on furnishing of
a bail bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties of like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, CBI, Addl. Court
No. 3, Guwahati, subject to the following conditions:
Page 45 of 46
i) that the accused applicant shall appear before the trial
court as and when required;
ii) that the accused applicant shall surrender his passport
with the trial court;
iii) that the accused applicant shall cooperate with the
authority in connection with ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023
dated 30.03.2023 and make himself available before the
authority of ED as and when called for;
iv) that the accused applicant shall not try to influence the
witnesses and tamper with the evidence in whatsoever
manner;
39. It is made clear nothing observed in this order shall be read
to the prejudice of either side at the trial. The facts, settled laws
and provisions of laws have been considered and examined only
for the purpose of considering the merit of the bail application of
the accused applicant. The learned trial court shall take its
independent view on the basis of the facts and evidence available
before it while proceeding with the trial.
40. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail
application is disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE
Miriam Degu
(SPA)
Page 46 of 46