INDIA’S success in securing the extradition of Sourabh Chandrakar, alleged mastermind of the Rs 6,000-crore Mahadev Online Book betting syndicate, followed a contested legal battle in Oman where the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also sought his custody. Indian nationality, an earlier application and compliance with Omani extradition safeguards ultimately tipped the judicial balance in India’s favour. Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai hailed Chandrakar’s return as a major breakthrough, thanking the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other Central agencies for their sustained efforts to bring him before Indian courts. The Hitavada exclusively accessed a copy of the 12-page judgment delivered by the Muscat Court of Appeal on October 8.

 

It explains why the judges selected India over the UAE and reveals a separate Omani prosecution that initially prevented Chandrakar’s departure. The contest began with applications lodged within 48 hours. India’s request reached the court registry on July 12, 2026, followed by the UAE’s on July 14. The court combined the proceedings and applied Article 6 of Oman’s Extradition of Criminals Law, which allows judges to choose between competing states by considering nationality, the location and gravity of offences, application dates and treaty arrangements. The judgment identifies three decisive considerations: India’s application arrived first, the Indian Embassy confirmed Chandrakar’s nationality, and Indian authorities supplied the documents and assurances required for surrender. The UAE, by contrast, omitted mandatory undertakings. The judges consequently approved extradition to India and rejected Dubai’s request, without determining Chandrakar’s guilt. India relied on its extradition treaty with Oman, signed on December 26, 2004, with ratification instruments exchanged on September 14, 2005.

 

Its file included a September 4, 2023 non-bailable warrant issued by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Raipur, a Chhattisgarh Police chargesheet, investigative material and statutory assurances. The request concerned alleged illegal betting and money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA in case RPZO/10/2022. The UAE’s request described Chandrakar as a Vanuatu national, a classification sharply at odds with the Indian Embassy’s confirmation. Chandrakar contested surrender to either country. Through counsel, he claimed to have renounced Indian citizenship in 2020 and acquired Vanuatu nationality He questioned jurisdiction and documentary sufficiency, and claimed to have been acquitted in the UAE in 2025. The court recorded those submissions without accepting them as grounds to refuse India’s request. On July 16, the judges sought clarification from the Indian Embassy in Muscat. Its diplomatic reply dated August 30 confirmed Chandrakar remained an Indian citizen.

 

Rejecting his objection, the court held that even possession of Vanuatu nationality would not automatically prevent extradition where statutory requirements were satisfied. Under Article 11, India had undertaken not to prosecute him for unrelated offences committed before surrender, not to extradite him onward without Oman’s consent, and to guarantee a fair trial with defence safeguards. The court also found that the alleged offence occurred in India, met Omani punishment thresholds and was supported by the necessary warrant and evidence. Dubai’s application, under the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, concerned Criminal Case No 18483/2026, involving allegations that money-laundering proceeds financed illegal organisations.

 

Although supported by an international arrest warrant, the UAE request lacked assurances limiting prosecution for other earlier offences, prohibiting onward surrender without consent and guaranteeing a fair trial. Those omissions, alongside India’s earlier filing and confirmed nationality, proved decisive. India’s victory did not, however, authorise immediate surrender. The Muscat judges postponed extradition because Chandrakar faced proceedings before the Seeb Primary Court over an allegedly forged travel document used to enter and attempt to leave Oman. Article 5 required completion of that trial, a final judgment and execution of any penalty.

 

The October 8 order does not explain how the condition was resolved before his November 1 transfer. Well-placed sources at the Enforcement Directorate’s Raipur Zonal Office (ED-RPZO), separately investigating the alleged betting network, indicated that the agency had monitored the extradition proceedings alongside the CBI and other Central authorities. “His return reflects sustained coordination involving the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs, CBI, ED and Omani authorities. With two CBI chargesheets and an ED prosecution complaint already filed, the focus now shifts from international legal proceedings to the courts in Raipur,” the sources said.