The Gauhati High Court has granted bail to bookie Deepesh Bajoria in a money laundering case arising out of alleged illegal betting on IPL matches, observing that the charge sheet and cognizance order in the original betting case did not disclose any offence scheduled under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed that “a scheduled offence is a sine qua non for a proceeding under the PMLA.” The Court also held that statements made by an accused under Section 50 of the PMLA while in custody of the same investigating agency are inadmissible against the maker.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had arrested Bajoria on September 19, 2026 in connection with an investigation into alleged money laundering through an IPL betting syndicate. The investigation originated from an FIR registered in 2021 which alleged that bets were placed on IPL matches through platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram.

The ED alleged that money generated through the betting operations was routed through various bank accounts and invested in assets. Bajoria's bail application was earlier rejected by the Special Judge on October 1 following which he approached the High Court.

Bajoria argued that the charge sheet filed in the original betting case and the subsequent cognizance order referred only to offences under the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970 which are not scheduled offences under the PMLA. He also contended that he was not named in the other FIRs subsequently brought into the investigation by the ED.

Opposing the plea, the ED alleged that the investigation had revealed an organised betting syndicate and the layering of proceeds generated from illegal betting.

Examining the original charge sheet, the High Court noted that although its heading referred to various IPC provisions but, its substantive portion invoked only Sections 13 and 14 of the Assam Game and Betting Act. The Magistrate had also taken cognizance only under those provisions.

The High Court therefore held that no scheduled offence was pending against Bajoria in the original FIR. It noted that although three other FIRs relied upon by the ED involved scheduled offences but Bajoria was not named in them.

On the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, High Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024) where it was held that when an accused is in custody under the PMLA, “any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker.”

The High Court further held that statements of co accused recorded under Section 50 could only be used as corroborative material and not as primary or substantive evidence to independently establish guilt.

Finding no material linking the investments allegedly made by Bajoria to proceeds of crime, the Court observed:

“Therefore, in the instant case in hand, materials available before this Court, prima facie do not suggest any proceeds of crime linked with the activity as alleged to have been committed by the accused applicant.”

Considering the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, the Court held that Bajoria had satisfied the requirements for grant of bail. It observed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the alleged money laundering offence and that he was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed Bajoria's release on furnishing a bond of Rs. 5 lakh with two sureties of the like amount. He was also directed to surrender his passport, cooperate with the ED and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Counsel for the Applicant: K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by T. Deuri, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent: Z. Hossain, Senior Advocate/Special Counsel, assisted by P. Sarmah, Standing Counsel and P. Tripathy, Advocate.