Sri Deepesh Bajoria vs Union Of India

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.

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”).

The facts of the case are summarised herein below:

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.

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 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.

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 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”.

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 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.

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 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.

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, learned Senior Counsel for the accused applicant, prays that the accused applicant be enlarged on bail.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 OnLine SC 929, in support of the submissions relating to the scope of the offence of money-laundering and the statutory 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 prima facie case of money-laundering and must be considered cumulatively.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 sina qua non for 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.

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 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra), wherein the 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 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:

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

Now, the question arises as to whether statements made by an accused person under section 50 of PMLA are admissible in evidence or not.

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 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.

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:

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 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.

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 Prakash (Supra) that the law laid down under section 30 (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:

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.

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 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:

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 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.

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 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.

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-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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 connection, the following paragraphs of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) have been relied on:

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 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 faciedo not suggest any proceeds of crime linked with the activity as alleged to have been committed by the accused applicant.

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:

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.

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:

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.

In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed.