Calcutta High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Multi-Crore Online Betting PMLA Case

The Calcutta High Court on Monday denied bail to one of the accused persons in a Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) case arising from an alleged illegal online betting and gambling racket.

The allegations pertain to illegal betting and gambling with proceeds allegedly laundered through multiple mule bank accounts and hawala transactions including transfers abroad.

The ED alleged that the accused Sonu Kumar Thakur provided mule accounts to betting panels, operated through sub agents and received proceeds of crime.

Justice Jay Sengupta rejected the bail application, holding that the twin conditions under the PMLA were not satisfied and that other aggravating factors such as the gravity of the offence, incriminating material, tampering of evidence and flight risk also militated against bail.

"Therefore, besides the restrictions contained in section 45 of the PML Act, the gravity and the nature of the offence and its societal impact, the quality of the incriminating materials collected thus far, the alleged prime role of being a mastermind of the multi-crore betting scam as ascribed to the petitioner, the possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses and most importantly, the chance of fleeing from justice are the factors that come in the way of granting bail to the present petitioner at this stage.", the Court said.

The predicate case was registered on October 23, 2022 under cheating, forgery and gambling-related provisions, alleging illegal online betting and gambling and laundering of its proceeds through mule accounts and hawala. The ED subsequently registered an ECIR on February 1, 2024.

On June 3, 2025, Sonu Kumar Thakur was arrested from his residence in Siliguri after the ED froze 107 bank accounts and six cards. His mobile analysis allegedly revealed 519 mule accounts with about ₹8.20 crore frozen between June 10-13, 2025. The ED alleged that Thakur supplied mule accounts to illegal betting panels through sub-agents and operated a betting panel himself.

The petitioner argued that he was illegally arrested and that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to his relatives. The ED maintained that the arrest and production before the Magistrate were lawful and that the grounds were supplied to him.

The Court held that production before the Jalpaiguri Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of the nearer Siliguri Magistrate did not violate the law as the petitioner was produced before the Special Court within 24 hours.

"Even if instead of before the Learned ACJM, Siliguri, the petitioner was produced before the Learned CJM, Jalpaiguri, who was evidently available at 9.00 pm., the same would not necessarily be a violation of the statutory requirement. Apparently, the ED did so as a matter of abundant caution."

On the grounds of arrest, the Court found that the petitioner had subsequently moved a bail application and there was no prima facie material showing that he or his relatives were unaware of the grounds or suffered prejudice.

The Court further noted that although the petitioner had been in custody for about one year and two months, substantial incriminating material existed including 519 mule accounts and an alleged ₹13-crore turnover in his accounts.

Accordingly, the Court rejected his bail, citing the alleged mastermind role, risk of tampering or influencing witnesses and the possibility of fleeing from justice.

For Petitioner: Manjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, Advocate Arkaprabho Roy

For ED: Advocates Adil Rashid, Sneha Pramanick, Aparna Sakar, Snigdha Ghosh