Gauhati HC Bails IPL Betting Accused, Finding No Scheduled Offence In His Main Case And No Link To Three Other FIRs

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) arrested Deepesh Bajoria on 19 September 2026 in connection with an ECIR concerning alleged IPL betting and money laundering

The ECIR was initially based on Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 12/2021.

Although the charge-sheet heading referred to Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, its substantive conclusion and the Magistrate’s cognizance order referred only to Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970, which the Court treated as non-scheduled offences under the PMLA.

The ED later incorporated three other police cases into the ECIR, but Bajoria was not named as an accused in those cases.

The ED relied on financial transactions, electronic communications and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, including statements by Bajoria and other persons.

After the Special Court rejected his bail application on 1 October 2026, Bajoria sought bail under Section 483 BNSS read with Sections 45 and 65 PMLA.

Section 3 PMLA criminalises processes or activities connected with “proceeds of crime,” which must derive from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence; the existence of proceeds of crime and their connection to the person are foundational facts for the offence (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India).

A person need not be an accused in the scheduled offence to incur PMLA liability, but the alleged property must still be linked to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

Section 45 PMLA requires the Court to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and whether the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail; the provision does not displace the principle that personal liberty is the rule (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary; Prem Prakash v. Union of India).

Relying on Prem Prakash, the Court treated a statement made by an accused while in custody of the same investigating agency as inadmissible against its maker, and held that a co-accused’s confession could only lend assurance to independent evidence, not serve as substantive evidence by itself.

The Court found that the cognizance order in the original case covered only non-scheduled offences and concluded that no scheduled offence was pending against Bajoria in that case.

It examined the three later-added cases and found no material showing Bajoria’s involvement in the alleged predicate offences or a connection between him and proceeds of crime from those cases.

The Court discounted Bajoria’s Section 50 statement as inadmissible against him in the circumstances described, and treated the statements of other accused persons as insufficient, without independent supporting material, to establish the necessary connection.

It therefore concluded that the record did not prima facie establish proceeds of crime linked to a scheduled offence and that Bajoria had satisfied Section 45’s twin conditions.

It directed his release on a bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including appearance before the trial court, surrender of his passport, cooperation with the ED, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the trial.