05/08/2025 1 - Govind Kumar Kedia S/o Late Mr. Ramanand Kedia Aged About 48 v. 1 - Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, Represented By Its Assistant Director
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4950 of 2025 Reserved for orders on : 24/07/2025 Orders passed on : 05/08/2025 1 - Govind Kumar Kedia S/o Late Mr. Ramanand Kedia Aged About 48 Years R/o Block A-5, Flat No. 10-D, 98, Cristopher Road, Brindavan Garden, Topsia Gobinda Khatick Road, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700046 ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, Represented By Its Assistant Director Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Raipur Zonal Office, A-1 Block Floor, Rujari Chambers, Pachpgdi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kishor Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ED : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order 1. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), read with Section 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as ‘the PMLA, 2002) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 06-12-2024 for the offence VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 20:15:22 +0530 2 under Section 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/10/2022 has been registered on 02-09-2023 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002 against various accused persons by the Enforcement Directorate (in short ‘the ED’). Initially, the name of the present applicant was not there in the ECIR dated 06-10-2022 and the amended ECIR dated 02-09-2023 as the accused. As many as 6 FIRs have been registered against various accused persons for the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy, which relates to the Online betting App by the name of Mahadev App. On 08-09-2023 and 10-09-2023, the residential house and office of the applicant was searched and DEMAT Account of the applicant and his family members were frozen. The applicant appeared before ED on their summons and his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA 2002 was recorded on 10-09-2023 itself. He again appeared on 11-09-2023, 12-09-2023, 27-09-2023, 28-09-2023 and 29-09-2023 and his statement were recorded by ED under Section 50 of PMLA 2002. The final reports/FIRs have been annexed by the ED along with its complaint dated 20-10-2023 in its first prosecution complaint. It is alleged that Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal are shown to be promoters of the said Mahadev Online betting App, and Vikas Chhapariya has a strong link with the said promoters, Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal. At the time when Sourabh Chandrakar got married outside India, the said Vikas Chhapariya had made payments to the vendors of the wedding; therefore, Vikas Chhapariya had a 3 strong link with the promoters. When the premises of Govind Kediya were searched, from his laptop it was found that certain information was shared by him with Vikas Chhapariya. It is also found that among many other account details, Govind Kediya was sharing account details of Nitin Tibrewal with Vikas Chhapariya, and thereafter the statement of Govind Kediya was recorded by the ED on 08-09-2023 and 10-09-2023.
Facts
On 20-10-2023, the ED had filed its first prosecution complaint under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002 against 14 accused persons, but in that complaint, the present applicant was not arrayed as an accused. On 01-01-2024, the ED filed its first supplementary prosecution complaint, in which the applicant was not arrayed as an accused. On 11-03-2024, the ED had filed its second supplementary prosecution complaint in the present ECIR under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA, 2002, for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002, against three accused persons, and in this supplementary prosecution complaint also, the applicant is not arrayed as an accused. On 30-04-2024, the ED has filed the third supplementary prosecution complaint against 7 additional accused persons and 16 companies. On 08-11-2024, 29-11-2024 and 06-12-2024, the applicant was again summoned by ED and ultimately, he was arrested on 06-12-2024. The allegation against the present applicant is that he is
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case against the applicant and non-fulfillment of the twin conditions enumerated in Section 45(1) of the PMLA 2002. Charge sheet/prosecution complaint has already been filed against the present applicant. Although, the other co-accused have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, the matter cannot be equated with 18 that case of co-accused persons. He would rely upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement”, 2023 SCC Online SC 1486, and submits that the parity is not the law and the allegation against the accused persons are to be examined. there should be no blanket order that only because another accused was released on bail, should not be passed. Considering the role played by the present applicant Govind Kedia in commission of offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, he was arrested on 06-12-2024. The prosecution complaint has already been filed against the present application at Special Court, PMLA Raipur. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the ED has identified the proceeds of crime and its realization by the betting syndicate. The proceeds in question were being generated by the Mahadev Online Book/skyexchange. From the material collected during the investigation, it has also been identified that the amount generated from illegal betting app has been utilized in investing in the Indian share market, etc. from the statement of Mr. Pawan Marodia @ Bunty, Mr. Bineet Agarwal, Mr. Sandeep Fogla and Mr. Sanjay Fogla, the involvement of the applicant in the offence in question is prima facie appeared. Further, the applicant was one of the admins of another illegal betting website “skyexchange” and the admin can create a master ID which further creates a player ID for betting. Therefore, he was under the knowledge that the betting operations of “skyexchange” are illegal and funds generated from it would come 19 under the ambit of proceeds of crime. Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, says the reasonable ground for believing which prima facie means that the Court has to see whether there is genuine case against the accused or not. The prosecution is not required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage. There is sufficient evidence against the present applicant involving him in the offence in question. He would also submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary’s case (supra) upheld the validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that in “Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI”, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the economic offences constitute clause apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep routed conspiracy and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. It is further submitted that all the key persons involved in the scam are relocated to the UAE. There is every chance of the applicant seeking to defeat the process of law in India. There is every possibility of tempering with the witnesses and evidence of the case. Further relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab” in the order dated 07-02-2024 passed in CRA No.704/2024 submitted that the trial proceeding of the case will take time and cannot be a ground to grant bail. He would 20 further submit that there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant which prima facie establishes his involvement in the offence in question and in view of the nature of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. For consideration of the bail application under PMLA, 2002 the Court need not go deep inside the merits of the case but should consider the prima facie material against the accused in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary’s case (supra) has observed in para 401 of its judgment that:- “401. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [(2005) 5 SCC 294]. The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [(2013) 7 SCC 466], the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.” 21 7. In the case of “Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh”, (2007) 11 SCC 195, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “at the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during trial.” 8. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 07-03-2024 passed in Bail Application No. 3807/2022 (Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate) after relying upon the observations made in the case of “Vijay Madanlal Choudhary” (Supra) has observed in para 49 that:- “49. It thus, emerges that at the stage of considering a bail application under the PMLA, the Court has to bear in mind the following aspects: i. Wether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea. ii. The words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. iii. A positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act is not required to be recorded. A delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal/conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of the trial is to be maintained. iv. The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously but a finding is to be arrived at on 22 the basis of broad probabilities with reference to the material collected during investigation. The weighing of evidence to find the guilt of the accused is the work of Trial Court. v. A finding is also required to be recorded as to the possibility of the bail applicant committing a crime after grant of bail. This aspect has to be considered having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.” 9. In the present case, in the statement of Pawan Marodia @ Bunty recorded under Section 50 of PMLA 2002, he admitted that the present applicant gave him the cash of Rs. 1.50 Crore for taking bank entries against cash on commission basis and invested it in the share market. He also admitted that under the instruction of the present applicant, he paid the salary to Mr. Arpit (employee of Mr. Anand Rathi) from the bank account of his wife Smt. Neelam Marodia, which was paid to him in cash by the present applicant. The credit IDs and password of “skyexchange” and password of trade account of Mr. Pawan Marodia was maintained by the applicant. There is close connection between Pawan Marodia and the applicant with respect to transaction of huge money. From the statement of Mr. Sandip Fogla, it also comes that they were paying salaries to Mr. Anurag Kedia and Mr. Abhishek Kedia, who are the employee of the present applicant and engaged in managing all the accounts. It is also found from the analysis of digital data that Mr. Sandip Fogla was having ID of “skyexchange” and used to place illegal bet. The client IDs and password of all trading accounts of Mr. Sandip Fogla, Mr. Sanjay Fogla and their family members were 23 maintained by the applicant in his laptop. He was having complete control on all the trading accounts of Fogla family and to invested the huge amount in share market. From the statement of Mr. Bineet Agarwal, it also reveals that he has taken Rs. 10 Crore cash from the present applicant which was utilized for receiving bank entries for Mr. Amit Saraogi, who is one of the accused in the case. the present applicant is also using trading account of his entity M/s Good View Trading, and he is maintaining the ID and password of the same. The investment made by M/s Good View Trading belongs to the present applicant having full control of said entity. The present applicant gave the amount in cash to Mr. Bineet Agarwal and he invested in the share market by using the bank account of his entities. From the statements of Mr. Nitin Sharma, Mr. Anurag Kedia, Shubhankar Jaria, Mr. Pawan Marodia @ Bunty, Mr. Sandip Fogla and from the analysis of digital data recovered from the laptop of the present applicant, there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant that he is involved in the commission of the offence of money laundering. 10. The criminal activity of operating of “skyexchange”, illegal online betting app and generating the proceeds of crime, transferred through the bogus bank account is the proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002. The digital record seized in the case and from the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 clearly establishes the link of the present applicant with the illegal betting website “skyexchange” and the generation of proceeds of crime 24 through it. 11. The proceeds of crime have been defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002 which reads as under:- “2.(1)(u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property, or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation :- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “proceeds of crime” including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI”, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, has held in para 34 and 35 of its judgment that- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the 25 accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary” (supra) has observed in para 398 as under :- “398. Thus, it is well settled by the various decisions of this Court and policy of the State as also the view of international community that the offence of money- laundering is committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State that law enforcement agencies should be provided with a proportionate effective mechanism so as to deal with these types of offences as the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from these dreaded criminals. As discussed above, the conspiracy of money-laundering, which is a three- staged process, is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness, thus, it becomes imperative for the State to frame such a stringent law, which not only punishes the offender proportionately, but also helps in preventing the offence and creating a deterrent effect.” 14. in the matter of “Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement”, 2023 SCC Online SC 1486, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption 26 permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act. 18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. ………..” 15. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also from the material produced in the present case, it is not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transaction. Denial by the accused itself is not sufficient to consider prima facie that there is no mens rea of the applicant for the said offence under the PMLA, 2002. Although the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 is required to be tested at the time of trial, for the purpose of consideration of bail application the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 can be considered against the applicant. 16. Considering the nature of allegation against the present applicant and 27 also the material collected during the investigation and further the gravity of the offence, the benefit of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be extended to him for releasing him on bail at this stage, as the facts and circumstances of the present case and the allegation against the applicant is different than the facts and circumstances of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant. 17. As has been discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. Considering the role of the applicant in the ensuing money laundering case of proceeds of crime in Mahadev Book App/skyexchange, it is found that there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent/ED to prima facie show the involvement of the applicant in the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. It is an organized crime having various facets of its complexion, therefore, further considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is involved in the offence and he is likely to commit any other offence while on bail, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 18. Consequently, the present bail application filed by the applicant Govind Kumar Kedia is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved
Arguments
well known to Mr. Hari Shankar Tibrewal, who is engaged in the 4 “skyexchange” betting app. The present applicant is also engaged in illegal operation of the “skyexchange” and he is a panel operator as well as a distributor of “skyexchange”. From the Excel sheet recovered from the laptop of the applicant, the calculations of illegal betting in “skyexchange” are found. The Excel sheet recovered from the applicant is corroborated by the statements of Mr. Pawan Marodia @ Bunty, and Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, in which they admitted to having an ID for “skyexchange” and using it to play through the applicant and cash transactions. It is also the allegation against the present applicant that the office of the applicant was used to collect cash from the illegal betting app of “skyexchange”, which is also corroborated by the statement of Mr. Nitin Sharma and Mr. Anurag Kedia (relative of the applicant). His staff, including Mr. Shekhar Ghosh, Mr. Biswajit Ghosh, Mr. Raju, and others, were involved in cash dealings. From the detailed calculation of the proceeds of crime from the “skyexchange” betting app between September 2020 to September 2023, i.e. on the date of the search of the premises of the applicant, he approximately earned Rs. 5.15 Crore, which is the proceeds of crime under Section 2(i)(u) of the PMLA 2002. It is also the allegation against the applicant that one Mr. Vikas Chhaparia is a close associate of the promoters of Mahadev Book, and he is handling the funds of Mahadev Online Book. present applicant through various investments. From the digital data recovered from the laptop of the applicant, and from his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA 2002, it comes that the applicant invested about Rs. 42.91 5 Crore in the share market through a DMAT account with the association of Mr. Vikas Chhaparia. Thus, the trade related to Mr. Vikas Chhaparia were settled by the applicant, knowing fully well that he was in possession of proceeds of crime. The applicant is engaged in dealing with the proceeds of crime, layering it, and also benefited from the same. The investigation also reveals that the applicant received bank entries of Rs. 1.51 Crore against cash from M/s Kaalka Jewels in the bank account run at Kotak Mahindra Bank in the name of his wife, Smt. Pooja Kedia, which is also corroborated by the statement of Mr. Shubhankar Jaria (prop. of M/s Kaalka Jewels). The applicant also utilised the services of his associates Mr. Sandip Fogla, Mr. Sanjay Fogla, Mr. Pawan Marodia @ Bunty and Mr. Bineet Agrawal, for layering of the proceeds of crime generated from “skyexchange” and “Mahadev Book”. From the present applicant, who was a friend of Nitin Tibrewal, digital devices were seized from him which also revealed that he was sharing an Excel account statement related to the present applicant’s investment with Vikas Chhapariya. It is also alleged in the prosecution complaint that the present applicant is also found to be associated with “skyexchange” which is also an illegal betting website and associated with the persons at the highest level of “skyexchange” and thus, the applicant enjoyed the proceeds of crime and is involved in the concealment, layering and use of proceeds of crime and has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 6 2002. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not an accused in the predicate offence as per Public Gambling (C.G. Amendment) Act, 1976. The alleged offence is not a scheduled offence. In reply filed by the ED, they have admitted that the proceeds of crime are only the money generated from the bogus/benami accounts used by “skyexchange”. He would also submit that the knowledge and mens rea is an essential ingredients to establish the offence of money laundering punishable under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 and the same is missing in the present case that the applicant had any knowledge or mens rea that “skyexchange” was using some bogus bank account for transactions. To link the applicant with the “skyexchange” betting App, the statements of Mr.Nitin Sharma, Mr. Anurag Kedia, Mr. Shubhankar Jaria (owner of M/s Kaalka Jewels), Mr. Vikas Chhaparia, are there which are recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002. Mr. Vikas chhaparia is a co-accused in the present case and his statements was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 since he is accomplish his statement is not admissible and is not qualified as evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the applicant has retracted his statement by filing his affidavit before the learned Special Judge, PMLA, 2002, Raipur and thus, the retracted statement cannot be considered to be evidence against the applicant. There is no reference to any scheduled offence committed by the applicant. Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002 defines the proceeds of 7 crime and Section 3 defines money laundering, therefore, there has to be a criminal activity that is connected with the scheduled offence and if any person generates some money which will come under the definition of proceed of crime which is defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002, therefore, the sine qua non is the existence of scheduled offence and the existence of proceeds of crime generated from the scheduled offence. The allegation against the present applicant is that he received proceeds of crime, but the ED could not identify the proceeds of crime. The applicant is involved in the fourth prosecution complaint. He would further submit that not a single player or a person who is playing in the game is the victim of the offence and no complaint has been made by them, no person is saying that they have been cheated. The ED unilaterally stated that it is cheating and illegal. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 has held that the foundational facts to establish money laundering criminal activity related to scheduled offence has been committed, property in question has been derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity and the person concerned is directly or indirectly involved in a process or activity connected with the said property being proceeds of crime. He would rely upon para 343 of the Vijay Madan Lal Choudhari’s case (supra). ED has failed to demonstrate that the property in question has been derived or obtained directly or indirectly by the present applicant as result of that criminal 8 activity as they have failed to prove any nexus between such proceeds of crime and the applicant. There is no evidence on record to show that the proceeds of crime generated through predicated offence have been concealed, possessed, acquired or used and claimed as untainted property by the applicant. The ED has made some vague allegations against the applicant that he is in association with “skyexchange” betting app. However, there is no evidence on record that the applicant actually has a nexus with “skyexchange”. Learned counsel for the applicant would further argue that the culpability of the applicant is based on an Excel sheet that was retrieved from the digital device owned by the applicant and the said Excel sheet was shared by the applicant to Vikas Chhapariya which purportedly contained financial documents relating to the applicant. There is nothing to show that these financial transactions were actually carried out. Further, it is not the case of the ED that such financial transactions were the proceeds of crime. The ED is in a hypothetical assumption that since the present applicant shared the financial transactions with Vikas Chhapariya, therefore, these were the part of Benami investment of Vikas Chhapariya. The ED has miserably failed to connect the applicant with the investment along with Vikas Chhapariya and therefore, a concocted story was developed by the ED that the applicant is involved in another betting App namely “skyexchange”. None of the predicate offences are related to any transaction of “skyexchange”. It is also part of the argument of learned counsel for the applicant 9 that against the applicant the statement of two persons are there in the case, i.e., Vikas Chhaparia and Shubhankar Jaria of M/s Kaalka Jewels. Their statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 have been considered as substantive evidence against the present applicant, whereas, in the matter of “Amit Agrawal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement” reported in 2024 SCC Online Delhi 141, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the statements made by co-accused/witness under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, their evidentiary value can be tested at the stage of trial. The bail application of the applicant in that case was allowed. The ED has miserably failed to prima facie demonstrate the requisite mens rea in the alleged act of the applicant to exhibit his knowledge or active participation in any act with proceeds of crime with respect to the scheduled offence. The allegation against the present applicant does not indicate any involvement in the predicate offence or even his knowledge to constitute the alleged offence, therefore, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. It is also submitted that the arrest of the applicant is illegal and malafide as the statement of the applicant has been recorded many times before the filing of fourth supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04-02-2025 and till that day the applicant was not made as an accused. The statement of the applicant has been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 after his arrest which hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 10 It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that ED cannot proceed with the pick and choose method in arraying the applicant as accused in the present case. in the original prosecution complaint, first supplementary prosecution complaint, second supplementary prosecution complaint, the applicant was not named and has not been arrayed as an accused and has not been arrested. The similarly situated accused persons in the case namely Prashant Bagdi and Anil Saraogi have not been arrested by the prosecution and he has been benefited by Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and released on their personal bond, after about more than one year of his initial investigation, he has been arrested, he repeatedly called by ED and he was cooperated with the investigation and appeared before ED whenever they called him, all the accused persons are on bail and the case of the present applicant is also similar to the case of other accused persons and the allegation are almost same that they are engaged in operating illegal batting app and generated the proceeds of crime, there are about 195 witnesses and till date, even the charges have not been framed and there is every possibility of delay of trial. The applicant is in jail since 06-12-2024. It is also submitted by him that recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the other similarly situated co-accused persons in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 14286 of 2024 (Nitin Tibrewal v. Directorate of Enforcement), and other batch of S.L.P. (Crl.), vide its order dated 23-07-2025, and the case of the present applicant is also similar to them, therefore the present applicant may also be released on bail. 11 The applicant cooperates at every stage of the investigation and appears before the ED on multiple occasions as and when they are required for investigation. There is reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of such an offence of money laundering. The applicant is a well-reputed individual with having good reputation in the society and community. He does not have any criminal antecedent. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and has to take care of his family. The appellant is to abide by all the conditions which may imposed by the Hon’ble Court while granting bail to him with the undertaking that he will not tamper with any evidence or to influence any witness of the case. The investigation against the present applicant has been completed. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ED, apart from the reply in writing submitted to the application by them has opposed the arguments made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that an ECIR bearing No. RPZO/10/2022 is recorded against Mahadev Online book to investigate the matter under the PMLA, Act 2002 on the basis of charge sheet No.157/2022 dated 29-07-2022 filed by police station Mohan Nagar, District Durg against Alok Singh Rajput, Rampravesh Sahu, Kharag @ Raja Singh and others for the offence under Section 120B and 420 of the IPC alleging in it that the accused persons are involved in online betting in live ludo, football, casino game and amass through Mahadev book. On being secret information, the raid was conducted and aforesaid accused persons were taken into custody 12 who had prepared a set-up with laptops by which they collected money by creating an Online ID and then the said money was put in bet for others through Mahadev Online book on online cricket match, horse racing, greyhound racing and Kabaddi etc. Various laptops, mobile phones, passbooks of various banks, debit/credit cards, sim cards, cheque books and cash were seized from the premises and an investigation under the PMLA, 2002 was undertaken after recording of the ECIR. During the course of the investigation, it came into knowledge that various FIRs have also been registered all over the country for illegal online betting through Mahadev book and one of the FIRs of Crime No.206/2023 dated 02-06-2023 was registered by Andhra Pradesh police, P.S. Cyber Crime, Vishakhapatnam Commissionerate for the offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3 and 4 of Andhra Pradesh Gambling Act. The Andhra Pradesh Police has further come to the knowledge that 21 persons were running call centres for the operation of the Mahadev App. and they were collecting money from punters who intended to put bets and deposited the money in bank accounts shared through WhatsApp groups. Those persons put their bets on websites like Tiger Exchange, Gold 365, Lesser 247, Cricket Buzz.com, and Play 247.win, skyexchange.com and Cricket Bet Nine.com. The money made from the said app was transferred to different bank accounts till it was siphoned to a person named Sourabh Chandrakar who lives in 13 Dubai. The Govt. has blocked the illegal betting website Mahadev Book. It also comes into knowledge that Sourabh Chandrakar, Ravi Uppal, Kapil Chelani and Satish Kumar who are also residing in Dubai, are known to operate close to 60 illegal offshore gambling websites such as Lotus 365, Fair Play, Reddy Anna, Lesser Book, Tiger Exchange, Bad book 247 and Gold 365. Several cases relating to fraud and illegal activities have been registered against Sourabh Chandrakar. Various FIRs have been registered against various individuals for being involved in illegal betting operations through the Mahadev book app and those FIRs are at P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, P.S. Bhilai Bhatthi, District Durg, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur etc. The FIR of Crime No.6/2024 registered by EOW, Raipur C.G. for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and Section 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended on 2018) registered against Sourabh Chandrakar, Ravi Uppal, Shubham Soni, Harishankar Tibrewal and others for being involved in betting operations through Mahadev Online book, Sky Exchange and other betting apps. The FIR No.206/2020 registered in the Burtola P.S., Kolkata, West Bengal for the offence under Section 120B and 420 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act, has also been registered against Harishankar Tibrewal, Suraj Chokhani and others for being engaged in online betting. He would further submit that Mahadev’s online book provides an online platform for illegal betting in different live games like cricket, 14 badminton, tennis, football etc. and also provides facilities for playing a number of card games like teen patti, poker, dragon tiger, virtual cricket game etc. To create an appearance of genuineness for this illegal betting racket Mahadev Online Book the promoters have a company registered in the name M/s Mahadev Book Market Limited in the country of Sent Vincent and the Grenadines under the directorship in the name of Shubham Soni who is part of top management of Mahadev Online book. Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal are the main promoters and beneficiary owners of this betting syndicate. The Mahadev online book operates from abroad and provides WhatsApp contact numbers on the websites. Once a user contacts the number, he will be provided two separate contact numbers. One contact number is to be utilized for depositing money and collecting points in IDs and the second number is for contacting the website to encash points accumulated in the designated IDs. The IDs are generally created on multiple websites depending on the needs and preferences of the betters. The betting app is operated by various panels/branches which are sold by the promoters and they keep 70-75% of the profit of the panel operations. A panel has an owner and workers normally four in number. One person can own multiple panels. The office of promoters in Dubai is commonly known as the head office by the panel owners and the said panel owners can create user profiles of players/punters. The panel operators are allotted fixed credits which can be transferred to any player/punter and credits are allocated to the players against 15 payments in designated bank accounts. The players/punters who want to play online betting through Mahadev Book via WhatsApp number given on the website of Mahadev Book then head office refers these players/punters to the panel. After receiving the details of the panel the players/punters deposit a minimum amount of Rs.100/- with no maximum amount for online betting. The panel owners receive the funds from customers into benami bank accounts which are arranged by the panel owners. These bank accounts are either opened fraudulently or loaned for commission. Thousands of employees are working in the call centre in Dubai which operates multiple WhatsApp groups for each panel. Weekly account sheets are shared with the panel owners by head office which contain statements of all bets, total profit or total loss. The panel owners are supposed to remit the shares of the Mahadev head office via hawala routs on a regular basis. During the course of the investigation, the bank account statements of various bank accounts gathered through intelligence were called for. After analysing the said bank accounts trends of funds have led ED to the doorstep of multiple entities that either remit money outside India or withdraw it as cash. It is suspected that thousands of crores of illegal betting proceeds which are nothing but proceeds of crime have been remitted outside India. The promoters of the Mahadev online book have also set up mini-companies in Dubai to route money and also to facilitate Visa services to the staff of the Mahadev online book working there. It was also found that one Harishankar Tibrewal, who hails from Kolkata and currently residing in Dubai is the partner of 16 promoters of Mahadev Online Book on being search of his premises in Kolkata, it was found that Harishankar Tibrewal owned and operated one of the illegal betting website i.e. “skyexchange”. He would further submit that from the applicant, his laptop has been seized and from the date recovered from his laptop, his connection with the “skyexchange” betting app is discovered. It also discovered that he is having close connection with Mr. Hari Shankar Tibrewal, who is one of the owners/promoters of “skyexchange” and the applicant is one of the panel operators as well as distributor of said “skyexchange”. From the Excel sheet discovered from the laptop of the applicant, certain calculation have also been detected which is corroborated with the statement of Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Pawan Marodia @ Bunty, who admitted that they are having IDs of “skyexchange” and used to place illegal betting at “skyexchange” through the present applicant. The said Ids are also matched with the IDs found in the Excel sheet of the laptop of the applicant. It is also found during the investigation that the office of the present applicant was used to be a hub of collecting cash generated from “skyexchange”. There is a statement of Mr. Nitin Sharma and Mr. Anurag Kedia, who stated that they have purchased points from Govind Kedia by paying cash at his office and other persons have also dropping cash there in relation to “skyexchange”. From the material available with the prosecution, a detailed calculation is done and it is found that in between September 2020 to September 2023, the applicant earned amount of Rs. 5.15 Crore (approx.) from “skyexchange”, which is 17 proceeds of crime. During the investigation, it also reveals that Mr. Vikas Chhaparia, whose name is in first prosecution complaint, is a close associate of promotors of “Mahadev Book” and he was handling the funds of Mahadev Online Book for investment purpose and involved in the offence of money laundering. From the digital date recovered from the laptop of the applicant, and from his statement, it reveals that he invested huge amount of Rs. 42.91 Crore in share market through his DMAT account under the instructions of Mr. Vikas Chhaparia. The trades related to Mr. Vikas Chhaparia was settled by the present applicant by way of cash knowing fully well that Mr. Vikas Chhaparia was in possession of proceeds of crime. The present applicant knowingly dealt with proceeds of crime and benefited out of the same and assisted Mr. Vikas Chhaparia in use, layering and earning profit on the proceeds of crime generated from criminal activities. He would also submit that the present applicant received bank entry of Rs. 1.51 Crore against cash from M/s Kaalka Jewels in the bank account at Kotak Mahindra Bank in the name of his wife Smt. Pooja Kedia, which has also been corroborated from the statement of Mr. Shubhankar Jaria (owner of M/s Kaalka Jewels). There exists a