What Prevented ED From Summoning Instead Of Outright Arrest?: Gameskraft Founder To Karnataka High Court In Plea Against PMLA Arrest

Questioning his arrest by the ED, Deepak Singh one of the founder's of gaming company Gameskraft told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (May 19) that the founders' arrest in PMLA case was not based on any new tangible material questioning the agency as to what prevented it from issuing summons instead of outrightly arresting. The founder further argued that the arrest was a predetermined exercise to bypass an earlier stay order granted in an indentical matter. Justice K.V Aravind was hearing a plea by Gameskraft founders Deepak Singh, Prithvi Raj Singh, and Vikas Taneja, who had moved the high court challenging their arrest in a money laundering case by the ED on May 7 at Gurgaon. They had also challenged a Bengaluru Court's order granting ED custody. As of today, the founders are in judicial custody. Appearing for Deepak Singh, senior advocate Dr S. Muralidhar argued:“…It's not a terrorist crime…. Why the drama – overnight, disturbing the magistrate at Gurgaon as well [for transit remand]? This is a pure misuse of power…There must be a stop to this kind of misuse somewhere. It's also taxpayers' money – these officers flying to Gurgaon. It was not needed to demonstrate the power of law. What prevented them from issuing a summons instead of an outright arrest? It wasn't like I was not cooperating. They have already collected a lot of material….”.Challenging the legality of the arrest, Muralidhar referred to Supreme Court's grant of interim bail in the Arvind Kejriwal case in the alleged liquor policy scam, to emphasise that a higher threshold is required to sustain an arrest under Section 19 PMLA. Muralidhar contended that once an arrest is held illegal, all further proceedings become illegal, and the only remedy is not limited to seeking bail as the ED would propose. To demonstrate that the arrest is illegal, and if the arrest is illegal, interim bail could be granted are the two aspects put forward by the petitioners, Muralidhar told the court by relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India.(2023).Muralidhar also added that the company's online gaming activity was shut down in August 2025 after the passing of a central statute, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which banned online real money games.Muralidhar argued that three FIRs were registered in Telangana on January 24, February 10, and February 12, 2026, after the High Court's stay order in the Bengaluru ECIR. No summons was issued, and no investigation took place in those FIRs, he argued.“…They then wait for three months and land up at my residence in Gurgaon in the morning, conduct a search and seizure relatable to Section 17 of PMLA…Early morning of May 7, the three of us were arrested. They furnished grounds of arrest which run from page 94 to page 101. An 8-page typed grounds of arrest – that was a predetermined exercise…The search began at 7 am on May 7. What was the time for them to gather materials and apply their mind, unless they went with a premeditated mind? It [grounds of arrest] referred to materials already gathered from the earlier search on November 18, 2025…”, he said. Muralidhar also submitted that the requirement under Section 19 of the PMLA Act that the officer ought to have 'reasons to believe', based on the material in his possession, about a person being guilty before his arrest has also not been followed in the Gameskraft founders' matter."…The earlier ECIR was based on Pocket52 [November 2025 search], a poker platform. This ECIR [May 2026 search] is based on RummyTime. Only the game is different, but similar allegations are made against the Gamekrafts platform – that users were manipulated to make losses. Twice investigated, twice closure reports were filed in the predicate offences.. The ECIR was also stayed in January", Muralidhar said.He also drew the court's attention to a comparative table to demonstrate that the material found during the second search (May 7) was largely old material from the November 2025 search."….The grounds of arrest don't refer to any material collected during the new search. They prepared an 8-page document on the date of arrest, referring only to material already collected – that becomes apparent at page 96. This kind of detailed analysis couldn't have possibly taken place in Gurgaon in the early morning. It's not physically practical”, he added. He further pointed out that the amounts involved in one of the complaints from Telangana were as low as Rs 51000/-.“…The court of first instance where the arrestee is produced is expected to examine whether there is tangible material. In our case, on two occasions, almost mechanically, the court of first instance granted ED custody. The failure of that court forces us to knock on the doors of the High Court…”, Muralidhar further said about the alleged impropriety of the PMLA court remanding the founders twice to ED's custody.Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for one of the other founders, also said:"When there was an...

What Prevented ED From Summoning Instead Of Outright Arrest?: Gameskraft Founder To Karnataka High Court In Plea Against PMLA Arrest

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

What Prevented ED From Summoning Instead Of Outright Arrest?: Gameskraft Founder To Karnataka High Court In Plea Against PMLA Arrest

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers