Betting chargesheet had no scheduled offence, other FIRs did not name him: Gauhati HC grants PMLA bail
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that Deepesh Bajoria met the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, finding no proceeds of crime linked to him, no scheduled offence pending against him in the Guwahati case, and no usable material in the three FIRs the Enforcement Directorate added to its case.
The police chargesheet in the Guwahati betting case named only the Assam Game and Betting Act, and that Act is not a scheduled offence under the money laundering law. The Enforcement Directorate relied on three other FIRs, but none of them named the man it had arrested. The Gauhati High Court has granted him bail.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita allowed the bail application of Deepesh Bajoria on 2 November 2026. He had been in custody since his arrest on 19 September 2026 under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
The single judge held that Mr Bajoria had satisfied the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Act. The judgment was reserved on 15 October 2026.
A 2021 betting FIR becomes an ED case
The case began with an FIR of 11 October 2021 at Crime Branch police station, Panbazar, Guwahati. It alleged IPL betting through WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram. Raids at two Guwahati residences led police to Deepesh Bajoria, Ronak Bajoria and Rajesh Jain.
Police seized four mobile phones and four ATM cards. They registered Case No. 12/2021 under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970.
On 30 March 2023, before any chargesheet, the Directorate registered ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023 to investigate money laundering. Police then filed Charge Sheet No. 2 on 31 May 2024 against Mr Bajoria, Ronak Bajoria, Rajesh Jain, Bikash Beria and Nitin Beria.
The chargesheet's heading mentioned Sections 120-B and 420 IPC alongside the Betting Act. Its substantive conclusion, the court noted, referred only to the Betting Act. The magistrate took cognizance on 5 November 2024 under Sections 13 and 14 of that Act alone.
Three more FIRs added in 2026
In 2026 the Directorate widened the ECIR. An addendum of 30 March 2026 brought in Tinsukia police station Case Nos. 568/2015 and 122/2024. A second addendum of 30 June 2026 added Panbazar FIR No. 106/2026.
The court recorded where each case stood. In the original FIR 12/2021 no charge had been framed. In FIR 568/2015, charges were framed in April 2024 against nine persons, including Bikash Beria and Nitin Beria, who are co-accused with Mr Bajoria in FIR 12/2021.
FIR 122/2024, in which cash of Rs 83,64,830 was seized, had no chargesheet yet. FIR 106/2026 stood registered as a case against nine accused including Alok Jain, with Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita added in June 2026.
The Directorate searched Mr Bajoria's residence on 26 May 2026. It said an ICICI Bank account of M/s DRM Coke showed credits of about Rs 28.12 crore and debits of about Rs 28.03 crore between April 2022 and May 2026, though the firm was said to be non-operational.
It also alleged transfers of Rs 7,76,68,657 to DRM Coke and other entities, of which only Rs 50 lakh came back, and a large investment by a man named Rishab Fulfagar. After the search, it said, an attempt was made to prepare a backdated loan agreement.
In a statement under Section 50 of the Act on 20 September 2026, Mr Bajoria allegedly said he collected cash bets, passed them to bookies and kept 10 per cent of the losing amount. The Directorate quoted him as saying he was "doing the betting under Alok Jain".
The Directorate's papers listed more. They included WhatsApp chats from January to May 2026 about IPL betting, an alleged 33 per cent share in a Sri Lankan baccarat operation that seemed to have been cancelled, and alleged investments of Rs 2 crore in a Guwahati club and Rs 2.20 crore in a Kolkata club.
Call records, it said, showed frequent contact between Mr Bajoria and people who were witnesses or under investigation. Mr Bajoria described the DRM Coke money as unsecured loans carrying an expected return of 16 to 20 per cent, and said some properties belonged to his wife or his late father.
The Special Judge, Assam, CBI, Additional Court No. 3, refused bail on 1 October 2026. Mr Bajoria then came to the High Court.
What each side argued
Senior Advocate K. N. Choudhury, with advocate T. Deuri, appeared for Mr Bajoria. He argued that money laundering requires "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u), meaning property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Large bank transactions did not by themselves supply that link.
He relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement. The chargesheet and cognizance order, he said, covered only non-scheduled offences, and the three added FIRs did not name his client.
He also said Section 50 statements given in custody were confessional, hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the BSA, and that co-accused statements could not start a PMLA case. He cited Prem Prakash v. Union of India.
Senior Advocate Z. Hussain appeared for the Directorate with standing counsel P. Sarmah. He described an organised syndicate of bookies and agents and said money laundering is an independent offence. A person need not be an accused in the scheduled offence.
He argued the chargesheet in FIR 12/2021 also cited Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, no charge had been framed, and Mr Bajoria had not been discharged. The Directorate pointed to transaction patterns, chats and recovered documents, and said all of it had to be read together.
The twin conditions and the predicate offence
Justice Kalita started from Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad. Both treat Section 45 as binding without exception. Bail under the Act requires the court to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail.
He also noted from the first of those rulings that a scheduled offence is a necessary condition for any PMLA proceeding. He said he would apply that to the facts later in the judgment.
The court first asked whether Mr Bajoria's own Section 50 statement could be used. It framed the issue this way:
“Now, the question arises as to whether statements made by an accused person under section 50 of PMLA are admissible in evidence or not.” (para 25)
Relying on Prem Prakash, the judge held that a statement under Section 50 made while the accused is in judicial or ED custody is inadmissible against its maker, because Article 20(3) and Section 23 of the BSA apply.
For co-accused, the court followed the same ruling on Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Investigators must gather independent evidence first, and a co-accused's Section 50 statement can only corroborate. It cannot be the foundation of a case.
No scheduled offence in the original case
The judge then turned to FIR 12/2021. Because the chargesheet and the cognizance order dealt only with the Betting Act, he held there was no scheduled offence pending against Mr Bajoria in that case.
He called the foundation of the PMLA proceeding missing. The statements recorded under that FIR, including those of Bimal Kumar Sarawgi and Rishab Fulfagar, therefore carried no value on proceeds of crime. The court also said no record linked the invested sums to proceeds of any predicate offence.
Mr Bajoria's own confessional statements, the court added, had no evidentiary value at this stage because of their inadmissibility.
The three live FIRs did not reach him
The Directorate's fallback was the three other FIRs, in which scheduled offences were still alive. The question, Justice Kalita said, was how Mr Bajoria was concerned with them, since he was named in none.
He examined each. In the Tinsukia case 568/2015 he found no allegations against Mr Bajoria in the FIR or chargesheet. In case 122/2024, statements had been recorded but none named him, and the Directorate showed no prima facie involvement.
The Directorate relied most heavily on FIR 106/2026 and the statements of its prime accused, Alok Jain. The judge went through them one by one.
Two statements, on 12 July and 5 September 2026, said Mr Bajoria was among those involved in betting. A third, on 21 July 2026, said he, his brother and another man had been betting in Guwahati for five to six years.
Other statements by Alok Jain, on 22, 23 and 24 July 2026, said nothing about Mr Bajoria. Because Alok Jain was in judicial or ED custody when he spoke, the court held, his statements carried no substantive value against the applicant.
The court agreed with the Directorate on one point of law. Money laundering is an independent offence, and the accused need not be named in the scheduled offence, as Vijay Madanlal Choudhary says.
But the judge held that without a predicate offence there is no proceeds of crime and so no PMLA case. Here, he said, "there has to be a predicate offence" (para 35), and nothing placed before him tied Mr Bajoria to proceeds from any of the three live FIRs.
Bail as liberty, with the statute intact
The judge also quoted Kanhaiya Prasad on why courts must not treat such cases lightly. It says money laundering is not an ordinary offence, and a cursory approach or a cryptic bail order that ignores the rigours of Section 45 cannot be defended.
Justice Kalita then quoted Prem Prakash for the point that Section 45 does not turn liberty into the exception. It only requires that its twin conditions be satisfied where they apply.
He found that Mr Bajoria had satisfied them. There were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty of the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, and nothing adverse suggested he would commit any offence on bail.
Order
The bail application was allowed, and Mr Bajoria was directed to be released immediately in connection with ECIR No. GWZO-I/06/2023. He must furnish a bail bond of Rs 5 lakh with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Assam, CBI, Additional Court No. 3, Guwahati.
The conditions are that he appear before the trial court whenever required and surrender his passport. He must cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate and be available when called. He must not try to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The court made clear that nothing in the order should prejudice either side at trial. The trial court is to take its own view on the evidence before it.