Sourabh Chandrakar: CBI gets two-day transit remand

A Delhi court on 2 November 2026 granted the Central Bureau of Investigation two days’ transit remand of Mahadev betting app promoter Sourabh Chandrakar, permitting his production before the Special Judge for CBI cases in Raipur on or before 4 November, PTI reported. The order authorised custody for the journey to the court handling the case, while leaving a dispute over the scope of his extradition from Oman for the Raipur court to decide.

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Nikhil Chopra at Rouse Avenue courts allowed the application after hearing the CBI and Chandrakar’s lawyers, according to Hindustan Times’ report published on 3 November. The CBI told the court that it had arrested Chandrakar on 1 November after Oman surrendered him to India.

The defence argued that the arrest breached the conditions of extradition and Section 21 of the Extradition Act, PTI reported. Its objection concerned the doctrine of speciality: the restriction on trying an extradited person for offences other than those for which surrender was granted, subject to statutory exceptions.

The original Delhi court order was not available for this report. The account of the hearing and the court’s reasoning is based on PTI’s report carried by ThePrint and Hindustan Times’ coverage.

Defence challenges the scope of extradition

According to PTI, Chandrakar’s lawyers submitted that the Muscat Court of Appeal had considered the Enforcement Directorate’s extradition request in its money-laundering case, not a request from the CBI. They argued that the CBI could not substitute itself for the ED when seeking custody.

The defence also said an undertaking under Omani law protected Chandrakar from punishment for a pre-surrender offence other than the one for which extradition had been sought. On that basis, it argued that the arrest itself was invalid and could not support a transit-remand order, PTI reported.

The hearing followed Chandrakar’s extradition from Oman, but raised a separate question: which Indian proceedings could follow that surrender. The defence’s objection was to custody in the CBI case, rather than a determination of the underlying betting allegations.

Senior Public Prosecutor V K Pathak, appearing for the CBI, disputed the defence’s reliance on the Omani order. PTI reported that he described the copy produced in court as neither authenticated nor certified and said it was unclear whether it was a translation.

Pathak also submitted that the CBI had sought extradition and received information from the Omani government about Chandrakar’s return. He argued that the ED proceedings arose from the underlying offence being investigated by the CBI and that the same special judge in Raipur was handling both matters, according to PTI.

The agency said Chandrakar had already been chargesheeted and that an open-ended non-bailable warrant issued by the special CBI judge in Raipur on 9 September 2026 remained pending against him. A chargesheet sets out the prosecution’s accusations; it is not a finding of guilt.

The prosecutor said transit remand was necessary because the agency could not take Chandrakar before the Raipur court within the requirement to produce an arrested person before a court within 24 hours, PTI reported.

Delhi court leaves the trial question to Raipur

According to PTI’s account, Judge Chopra noted that the Omani order placed before him was neither authenticated nor certified. He also considered the connection between the ED proceedings and the predicate offence in the CBI case – the underlying alleged crime from which the money-laundering proceedings arose.

The judge said a court considering transit remand could examine the validity of an arrest. However, whether the case fell within exceptions under Section 21 could not be decided at that stage and was outside the Delhi court’s jurisdiction, PTI reported.

The reported decision therefore allowed the transfer without settling whether Chandrakar could be tried or punished in the CBI case. PTI reported that the judge left that question to the special court in Raipur.

The court also recorded that Chandrakar had undergone a medical examination, that the report had been placed on record and that his wife had been informed of his arrest, according to PTI.

The investigations behind the custody request

The CBI registered its case on 18 December 2024 after taking over an investigation from the State Economic Offence Bureau in Raipur following notifications by the Chhattisgarh government and the Centre, PTI reported.

The allegations described in that report concern Chandrakar, co-accused Ravi Uppal and associates operating online betting through panel and branch operators. Investigators alleged that proceeds were moved through bank accounts to the UAE and that the network was controlled from Dubai.

Separately, the ED’s press release dated 25 March 2026 described an alleged franchise-based betting operation run through local panels or branches, with Chandrakar and Uppal controlling it from Dubai. The agency alleged that funds passed through dummy bank accounts, informal hawala transfers and cryptocurrency transactions before being invested in assets in India and the UAE.

In that release, the ED said a provisional attachment order dated 24 March covered 18 properties in Dubai and two in New Delhi, with a combined fair market value of nearly Rs 1,700 crore. It alleged that the properties were acquired using proceeds of illegal betting. The attachment was an enforcement measure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, not a conviction.

ETV Bharat subsequently reported, citing officials, that the CBI had taken Chandrakar to Raipur on a private flight for production before the special court. That report did not give the outcome of a Raipur hearing. Whether the extradition conditions permit proceedings against him in the CBI case remained the question the Delhi judge had left for that court.