'If Procedure Not Satisfied Liberty Can't Be Sacrified': Gameskraft Founder Tells Karnataka High Court That ED By-Passed Arrest Procedure

Gameskraft founder Deepak Singh challenging his arrest and remand in a PMLA case, told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 3) that the ED had by-passed the arrest procedure alleging that the grounds of arrest appeared to be pre-typed even before the May 7 search, that led to his custody, was completed.

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna was hearing three writ petitions filed by the founders of Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd-an online gaming platform-who are currently in judicial custody.

Senior Counsel Dr. S Muralidhar, appearing for Deepak Singh, one of the founders of Gameskraft Technologies, told the High Court that the search that led to their arrest commenced on May 7 and ended on May 8, but the grounds of arrest and reasons were not emanating from the said search and seizure.

"…Imagine a whole team conducting search and seizure. First, they have to be satisfied that the result of the search and seizure is enough for arrest. But they have already gone to Gurgaon (residences of founders) with typed documents. It is rendering the language of the law completely redundant. Section 19(1) of PMLA Act [Reasons to Believe & Grounds of Arrest] may be satisfied in letter, not in spirit…. if procedure is not satisfied, liberty cannot be sacrificed," the counsel submitted.

At this the court orally said, “Yes, procedure is the lifeblood of liberty”.

Muralidhar while assailing the arrest of founder Deepak Singh and others further said, "…Because they (ED) bypassed the procedure, we are taken into custody and remain there for a month. We are not fugitives; we have not diverted assets…. What was so urgent that it couldn't even wait for a minute, and brought us to this court instead of issuing summons?"

The petitioner also argued that while the bail applications would be argued separately before the trial court, however the legality of arrest is a distinct issue from bail.

Muralidhar said, “…The three FIRs registered in Telangana remained dormant for four months. Then, on February 23, 2026, the ED suddenly registers a fresh ECIR in Bengaluru based on these predicate offences in Telangana…”.

At this stage the court orally said,"…ED is expected to search and then write, not research and then write," while noting that the procedure under Section 19 PMLA must be followed in 'both letter and spirit'.

Muralidhar further said that the entire exercise was premised on material already put to test in the earlier ECIR and already subject to a stay order by the High Court.

At this stage the court orally asked, “…One clarification by way of case law requires in this matter. Reasons found in reasons to believe and grounds in grounds of arrest, whether I can enter it in my jurisdiction and say that these are the reasons valid and these are the reasons not valid?”.

Muralidhar said that this was not a case of review on merits where adequacy of material is gone into. He said that the petitioners were only seeking that the procedure must be followed.

"Let's say if ED said our search on May 7 has yielded us some material to arrest him…the existence of materials U/s 19 PMLA has to be gone into…not the adequacy...”, Muralidhar said.

“…According to you, the material should be found at the time of search and seizure. But here, the reasons were based on material already there and nothing sprang after the search?”, the court asked.

It further asked whether the material for grounds should be found in that search forming the foundation of ECIR. To which, Muralidhar said, “Yes…That incriminating material forming the foundation must be the material gathered in that search. Otherwise, the ED would try and find out something in a search and even if they don't, they would think they already have material from earlier search and seizure…let's use it again…”.

The court heard submissions made by counsel appearing for the other petitioners. It thereafter, adjourned the hearing to June 4 for submissions by ED.

Background

The founders, Deepak Singh, Prithvi Raj Singh, and Vikas Taneja, challenging their arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on May 7, 2026, had earlier argued that the agency had no 'new tangible material' to justify the arrest when an earlier ECIR stood stayed by the court.

For context, the High Court had on January 22, 2026 stayed the ED's investigation against Gameskraft after a closure report ('B' report) was filed in the FIR registered for the predicate offence at Bengaluru. The court had then noted that once the FIR is closed, the foundation for the ECIR (registered in November 2025) had vanished.

After the May 7 search and seizure, the founders were produced before the court in Bengaluru after a transit remand was obtained from Gurgaon, and the ED obtained their custody twice. The petitioners are now in judicial custody, with the matter of bail coming up for further hearing next Monday before the Special Court at Bengaluru.

However, two days after that order, on January 24, 2026, an FIR was registered in Telangana for an alleged loss of Rs 63,000. Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered, one alleging loss of Rs 1.65 crore and another alleging loss of around Rs 40 lakhs.

Case Title: Deepak Singh v. Enforcement Directorate & connected matters

Case No: WP 15130/2026, WP 15277/2026 & WP 15278/2026