THE Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court in Raipur on Wednesday remanded Sourabh Chandrakar, alleged co-founder of the Mahadev Online Book (MOB) betting network, to police custody until 4 pm on November 12, enabling investigators to question him in New Delhi about the syndicate’s operations, financial channels and suspected official patronage. The possibility of disclosures concerning alleged protection payments has heightened unease among officers and others earlier covered by CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) searches linked to the case. At the heart of the CBI’s remand plea was its allegation that Chandrakar, Ravi Uppal and their associates ran online betting platforms through panel and branch operators, earning approximately Rs 450 crore in illicit income every month. The agency identified Chandrakar as one of the founders of the operation, allegedly controlled from a headquarters in Dubai.

 

The figure is an investigative claim, not an amount determined by the court. The prosecution went further, alleging that senior police officers, administrative officials and political figures accepted protection money and misused their positions to facilitate the business. The CBI argued that custodial questioning was required to identify suspected beneficiaries, examine the alleged official nexus and collect evidence concerning other persons whose roles remain under investigation. The earlier chargesheet, the court recorded, also refers to suspected use of betting proceeds to influence senior government officers, political figures and others. Special Judge Manoj Kumar Singh Thakur considered the case diary, chargesheet and rival submissions before granting custody for a shorter period than the CBI sought. Additional Superintendent of Police Ajit Singh had requested remand until November 14; senior public prosecutor Chandan Kumar appeared for the agency. Defence advocate Tushar Giri opposed the application, while advocate Ashutosh Pandey entered a separate appearance.

 

The order notes that a chargesheet against Ritesh Kumar Yadav and 23 others is already before the court as Special Case No. 6/2026. The prosecution cites Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201; Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; provisions of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022; and Section 4A of the Public Gambling Act. Chandrakar was arrested in New Delhi on November 1 after being brought from Oman following extradition. A standing arrest warrant had been issued against him, and the CBI referred to a Red Corner Notice. Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court granted transit remand on November 2 for his production in Raipur by November 4. The Raipur judge recorded submission of the arrest memorandum, personal-search memorandum and checklist, along with Chandrakar’s acknowledgement that his family knew of his arrest. On examining the records, the court found prima facie grounds supporting the arrest. The defence maintained that the CBI had acted contrary to the conditions of Oman’s surrender and asked the court to reject police remand. Counsel relied, among other authorities, on the Delhi High Court decision in Vinay Mittal versus Union of India. A written objection was supported by Chandrakar’s affidavit, which the judge noted had not been authenticated by a notary or oath commissioner. The CBI denied any violation of extradition conditions and furnished a photocopied document in response. The remand ruling did not conclusively decide the broader extradition dispute.

 

efence counsel also sought daily meetings with lawyers and family members, medical checks every 48 hours and CCTV-covered interrogation. The court ordered medical examinations before police custody and upon production, protection of Chandrakar’s dignity and human rights, and strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh. It permitted a daily half-hour meeting with counsel or relatives; the order does not specifically direct uninterrupted recording of every interrogation session. On a supplementary request citing security, the judge allowed questioning at the CBI’s New Delhi office, observing that investigators could determine a suitable venue for evidence collection. Any move to another interrogation location must be communicated to Chandrakar and his lawyer or family. Daily meetings were fixed between 5 pm and 5.30 pm. Chandrakar must be produced again on November 12. Separately, confidential investigative estimates earlier accessed by ‘The Hitavada’ place suspected proceeds across MOB and associated betting platforms at Rs 88,000 crore to Rs 94,000 crore. Those estimates are not findings in the remand order, nor do they represent money recovered by investigators.

 

 

THE Chhattisgarh High Court has ordered the immediate defreezing of a shipping firm’s bank account restrained during the Mahadev Online Betting (MOB) investigation, ruling that police cannot indefinitely block an entire business account without establishing its connection to alleged criminal transactions. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal allowed a petition by Shahib Khan and Saher Khan, associated with Indigo Shipping Services, setting aside orders passed by a Raipur Judicial Magistrate on September 3, 2024, and the Tenth Additional Sessions Judge on October 26, 2024. The account, maintained with ICICI Bank in Visakhapatnam, was frozen following directions from Khamtarai police investigating Crime No. 685/2023 under cheating provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022. The petitioners maintained that neither was named in the First Information Report or chargesheets and that their dealings with accused Mohammad Farhan did not establish criminal involvement. The State opposed relief, alleging substantial suspicious transfers linked to Mahadev betting operations. It said 21 accused had been chargesheeted and electronic evidence was being examined. Crucially, a July 18, 2026 cyber forensic report concerning Farhan’s seized devices found neither Mahadev nor Reddy betting applications nor WhatsApp evidence of operating those platforms. It did identify chats concerning financial transactions, without establishing their amounts as proceeds of crime. The Court observed that investigators had not specified transaction dates, amounts, beneficiaries or the suspected portion of the account balance. It also stressed mandatory reporting of seizures to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 106(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. While directing police to restore banking operations forthwith, the Court preserved their authority to secure identifiable suspect funds through lawful proceedings before the competent Magistrate. It expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the criminal allegations.