Back
Denies Bail to Sonu Kumar Thakur in Multi-Crore PMLA Betting Scam
Justice Jay Sengupta of the on Monday rejected the of Sonu Kumar Thakur, an accused in a multi-crore illegal online betting and money laundering case registered under the . The court held that the under were not satisfied and that —including the gravity of the offence, the volume of incriminating material, and the —militated against granting bail.
The Alleged Mastermind Behind the Mule Account Racket
The case stems from an FIR registered on , at under provisions of the and the , alleging illegal betting and gambling. The subsequently registered an ECIR on , under the PMLA. According to the ED, the were laundered through layers of and siphoned off abroad via .
On , Thakur was arrested from his residence in Siliguri after the ED froze 107 bank accounts and six cards. A forensic analysis of his mobile phone allegedly revealed 519 with a cumulative frozen balance of approximately ₹8.2 crore. The ED claimed that Thakur supplied these accounts to illegal betting panels, operated through a network of sub-agents, and even ran a betting panel himself. Despite being unemployed, his personal accounts showed a turnover of ₹13 crore.
Arrest Procedure Challenged; Court Finds No
Thakur’s counsel, led by , argued that the arrest was illegal on two grounds. First, although the nearest magistrate was the —just 3 km from the place of arrest—the petitioner was produced before the , 43 km away. Second, the were not communicated in writing to his relatives, violating as interpreted in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025). Counsel submitted that the arrest memo itself did not indicate the place of arrest, and the ED’s affidavit only claimed that family members were “implicitly informed”—a mere formality.
The ED countered that the production before the Jalpaiguri magistrate was a precautionary measure after court hours, and that the petitioner was produced before the within 24 hours, causing no . On the , the ED argued that the document was supplied to Thakur, who then handed it over to his relatives. The search memo showed that the were no longer in Thakur’s possession after the search, indicating they had been passed on. The ED also relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), which held that while under special statutes must be communicated in writing, the requirement is not absolute in all cases.
“No Violation of Article 22”
Justice Sengupta rejected the arguments on arrest procedure. On the production point, he observed that “even if instead of before the Learned , the petitioner was produced before the Learned , who was evidently available at 9.00 pm., the same would not necessarily be a violation of the . Apparently, the ED did so as a matter of .”
On the communication of grounds, the court noted that the petitioner had subsequently moved a , and there was no evidence that he or his relatives were unaware of the grounds or suffered any . “The contention of the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner had himself handed over the to his relatives… is indeed quite capable of thwarting the petitioner’s claim of non-supply of to the relatives,” the court stated.
Merits of the Case Override Incarceration Period
While acknowledging that the petitioner had been in custody for about one year and two months, the court found that the seriousness of the allegations outweighed this factor. The ED presented evidence that Thakur was the “” of the scam, with 519 , ₹8.2 crore frozen, and a turnover of ₹13 crore in his own accounts. The court also noted that Thakur had been an in the since and in the PMLA case since , and that one of his accomplices had already fled to Dubai.
“Therefore, besides the restrictions contained in , the gravity and the nature of the offence and its , the quality of the 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 or influencing the witnesses and most importantly, the chance of are the factors that come in the way of granting bail to the present petitioner at this stage,” the court concluded.
Key Observations
- “Long incarceration without much progress in a proceeding can indeed outweigh the rigors of the , when read in the light of the as enshrined in .”
- “However, there are certain other that are also to be taken into account while considering the question of bail.”
Court’s Decision and Implications
The was dismissed. The court directed that urgent certified copies of the order be provided to the parties upon completion of formalities. The decision reinforces that in PMLA cases, the under Section 45— innocence and —must be demonstrably satisfied, and that generalized claims of procedural violation will not automatically entitle an accused to bail if the merits of the case are strong.
