A Delhi court on Monday granted the CBI's request for a two-day transit remand of Mahadev App promoter Sourabh Chandrakar, who was recently brought back from Oman, allowing the agency to produce him before a special CBI court in Raipur by November 4.
Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Nikhil Chopra rejected the defence's objection that the arrest was illegal and that the CBI could not take him into custody, saying such questions would have to be decided by the Raipur court.
The CBI case was registered on December 18, 2024 after the investigation into an FIR of the State Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur, was transferred to the agency following notifications issued by the Chhattisgarh government and the Centre.
It is alleged that Chandrakar and co-accused Ravi Uppal, along with associates, promoted the Mahadev Book App and ran online betting through panel and branch operators.
According to the allegations, hundreds of bank accounts were allegedly opened on the basis of commission and the illegal betting proceeds were routed to the UAE through various accounts.
The accused allegedly operated the syndicate from Dubai, which was called its 'Head Office', and employed a large number of youth from Chhattisgarh as managers.
On Monday, the CBI told the court that Chandrakar has been charge-sheeted and an open-ended non-bailable warrant, issued on September 9, 2026 by the special CBI judge in Raipur, was pending against him.
It said that the accused was detained in Oman for illegal entry on forged travel documents and was then extradited to India.
The CBI said it needed transit remand to produce him before the Raipur court within the statutory time frame.
The defence, however, argued that the Muscat Court of Appeal of Oman's Supreme Judicial Council had considered only the extradition request made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its money laundering case pending before the Special Judge in Raipur and not any request by the CBI.
It said the CBI was therefore violating the extradition order and the "doctrine of speciality" under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which restricts the trial of an extradited person to the offences for which extradition was granted.
It also argued that an undertaking was given under Omani law that the person would not be punished for any pre-surrender offence other than the one for which extradition was sought.
The defence claimed that the CBI could not replace the ED for the purpose of remand, other pending cases could not be considered at this stage and there was no question of transit remand since the arrest itself was vitiated.
Senior Public Prosecutor V K Pathak, appearing for the CBI, said the copy of the Omani court order produced by the defence was neither authenticated nor certified, and it was unclear whether it was a translation.
He said the CBI had also sought extradition and had received information from the Omani government about the accused being sent back.
The ED case arises out of the scheduled offence being probed by the CBI and the same special judge in Raipur is seized of both matters, Pathak said, adding that transit remand could not be denied on technical grounds.
The prosecutor said the court's jurisdiction at this stage was limited to checking compliance with the requirement of producing an arrested person within 24 hours, and that the CBI could not have produced the accused before the Raipur court within that period.
The court said the copy of the Oman order placed before it was neither authenticated nor certified.
It noted that the document itself showed that a chargesheet dated July 29, 2022 was placed before the Omani court in the extradition proceedings initiated by India.
While there was no dispute that the doctrine of speciality requires an accused to be tried only for the offence for which extradition is ordered, the court said it could not ignore that the ED proceedings arise out of the predicate offence that is the subject of the CBI case.
The judge said that although a court considering transit remand can examine the validity of the arrest, Section 21 of the Extradition Act itself provides certain exceptions, and whether the present case falls under them could not be decided at this stage nor fell within the court's jurisdiction.
"At present, this court has to consider only the question of transit remand," the court said, adding that whether Chandrakar can be tried or punished in the CBI case is for the special court in Raipur to decide.
The court noted that his medical examination had been conducted, the report placed on record and his arrest had been intimated to his wife.
Allowing the application, the court permitted production of the accused before the special judge for CBI cases in Raipur on or before November 4.
(With inputs from PTI)
