Chattisgarh High Court
Govind Kumar Kedia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 August, 2025
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
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
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
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN the applicant who has been arrested on 06-12-2024 for the offence
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.
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
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
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
22the 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
25accused 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
26permitted 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