'Why Should I Suffer If Arrest Is Illegal?' Gameskraft Founder Tells Karnataka High Court; ED Gets Time Till Tuesday To Respond

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [May 14] granted Enforcement Directorate (ED) time until next Tuesday to file its objections to a plea moved by the founders of online gaming company Gameskraft, who have challenged their arrest and remand in a money laundering case.

A single-judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal was hearing the petitions filed by Deepak Singh, Prithvi Raj Singh, and Vikas Taneja, founders of Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., challenging their arrest on May 7 and the PMLA Court's order granting ED custody on May 9. Yesterday, the PMLA court extended the custody of the founders till May 19.

“..Heard senior counsel Dr. Muralidhar, Senior counsel C.V Nagesh as well as Special Counsel appearing for ED. Respondent ED seeks accommodation to file objections…Considering the allegations made, court grants time till next Tuesday making clear if objections are not filed by then, appropriate orders will be passed. Respondent counsel shall file the objections before the next date of hearing after serving the copy to the petitioners (on Monday)”, the court noted in its order.

Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appearing for petitioner Deepak Singh, told the court that the company's platform involved games of skill and that the arrest was illegal.

The counsel, refuting ED's stance, also pointed out that the present ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) stemmed from three First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in Telangana, while a similar ECIR had already been stayed by the High Court.

Identical allegations could be found in both ECIRs, the counsel submitted before the court. After four months, within twelve hours, they drew up grounds of arrest at Gurgaon, and these were no different from the ECIR already stayed, Muralidhar argued.

"There was no need for ED Bengaluru to pick up a Telangana FIR, go to Gurgaon, and arrest him. The company is registered in Bangalore, but there is no FIR in Bengaluru. The FIR is registered in Telangana; there is no investigation in the three FIRs in Telangana, not even summons has been issued,”  the counsel further submitted.

Muralidhar further informed the court that in one of the earlier predicate offences, the closure report was accepted by the trial court in July 2025. He alleged that the ED had previously seized laptops and filed a closure report in a different case.

"Here, the challenge is upon the legality of arrest. In the special court, there is a procedure. ED custody was extended. But what about the legality of arrest? One month later, if the High Court says the arrest was illegal, why should I have suffered? Once the arrest is held to be illegal, release must be immediate. What was seized earlier for the earlier ECIR has not even been returned."

He pressed upon the court to consider interim bail on the grounds that the accused-petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

However, the court was firm in its stance that the matter would be taken up again on Tuesday to ascertain whether the newly registered ECIR was founded upon any tangible evidence, after ED places the relevant documents on record.

The ED, on the other hand, argued that judicial review of an arrest under the special statute [PMLA] is limited. ED also took the stance that earlier ECIR was based on Gameskraft owned poker platform Pocket52 whereas the new ECIR is founded upon discrepancies regarding the rummy gaming platform.

"Place the documents on record. We will post it on Tuesday”, the court orally told ED.

At this juncture, Senior Counsel Muralidhar said that ED had been targeting the founders of Gameskraft.

"They failed in the first attempt to get us. Now they are after us”, Muralidhar told the court today.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared for the other petitioner founders, Prithviraj Singh and Vikas Taneja.

Background

For context, the Karnataka High Court on May 12 had sought Enforcement Directorate's response on a plea filed by Founders of gaming company Gameskraft–Deepak Singh, Prithvi Raj Singh and Vikas Taneja–challenging their arrest and remand in a money laundering case last week.

ED has accused Gameskraft of tampering with the game results and luring customers to make large deposits.

The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S Kamal was hearing the founders' plea challenging their arrest on May 7 in connection with an ECIR (enforcement complaint) arising out of a predicate offence registered in Hyderabad. The plea also challenges the Sessions Court's May 9 order granting ED custody. The matter will be heard next on May 14.

During the hearing, senior advocate S. Muralidhar appearing for the petitioner Deepak Singh, argued that the Gameskraft Company is no longer functional and two of the accused, including Deepak, were arrested from Gurugram in an illegal manner by the Bengaluru Police and brought to the jurisdictional court on transit remand.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared for Prithviraj Singh and Vikas Taneja, the other two founders.

Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (GTPL), is an online intermediary company incorporated in June 2017 that runs technology platforms, allowing users to play skill-based online games against each other, such as real money rummy games. The company had over 10 Lakh users from across India, and is headquartered in Bangalore.

In the plea before the High Court, petitioner Deepak Singh has argued that his arrest on May 7 violated the mandatory safeguards under Section 19 PMLA Act and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also sought the court's direction to quash the contentious ECIR registered against him.

Hence, the plea seeks the court's intervention to quash a May 9 order passed by the Sessions Court , granting ED the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner also sought the ex parte ad interim relief of releasing him pending the disposal of his writ petition.

In a separate matter, the high court in an interim order on January 22 stayed ED's investigation against Gameskraft Technologies after a closure report was filed in the FIR registered for the predicate offence, noting that once the FIR is closed, the foundation for ECIR from November 2025 had vanished. The company had sought the quashing of ED's November 2025 ED complaint and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

The ED had then told the court that if the agency finds other offences in the course of investigation, then it can update the ECIR. There were at least 6 similar FIRs, said the ASG on January 22.

Case Title: Deepak Singh v. ED & connected matters

Case No: WP 15130/2026