RAIPUR, November 4, 2026 — A special court in Raipur has granted the Central Bureau of Investigation eight days of custody of Saurabh Chandrakar, an accused promoter of the Mahadev online betting network, allowing investigators to question him in connection with an alleged betting syndicate whose operations and financial flows are under scrutiny across several agencies.
The court on Wednesday authorised the CBI to take Chandrakar to Delhi for questioning after the agency sought 10 days of custody. It also accepted certain requests made by the defence, including meetings with his lawyers and family members and the use of closed-circuit television surveillance during interrogation, according to his lawyer Tushar Giri, whose account was reported by PTI and other news outlets.
Chandrakar was produced before Special Judge (CBI) Manoj Kumar Singh Thakur after being brought to Raipur from Oman via Delhi. He had been extradited to India and placed in a two-day transit remand earlier in the week so that the CBI could bring him before the court handling the Chhattisgarh case. The eight-day remand runs until November 12, according to reports of the court proceedings.
The hearing also opened a legal dispute over the scope of the extradition. The defence argued that Oman had approved Chandrakar’s return in connection with an Enforcement Directorate money-laundering case and not the CBI’s separate criminal investigation. His lawyer invoked the principle of speciality in extradition law, which generally restricts prosecution in the requesting country to the offences for which surrender was granted, subject to the terms of the relevant treaty and any applicable exceptions. The argument is a defence submission; the court has not been reported as accepting it or ruling that the CBI case falls outside the permitted scope.
The CBI sought 10 days to question Chandrakar about the alleged online betting operation, its network of panel operators and the movement of money. The court granted eight days and permitted investigators to take him to the agency’s headquarters in Delhi. The change of location is intended to enable questioning by the central agency, but it does not alter the fact that the remand was ordered by the special court in Raipur.
According to defence lawyer Tushar Giri, the court accepted requests that Chandrakar be allowed to meet his lawyers and family members and that interrogation take place under CCTV surveillance. These conditions were reported as part of the court proceedings by PTI and the Hindustan Times. The details available publicly do not set out the full schedule or frequency of such meetings, nor do they provide the complete text of the court’s remand order.
The defence also raised the extradition objection during the hearing. It contended that the permission obtained from Oman related to the ED’s money-laundering case and not the CBI case. The CBI’s investigation is based on a separate FIR registered in India, and the legal issue will turn on the terms of the extradition approval, the applicable treaty provisions and how the two investigations relate to the alleged conduct.
The distinction is important because extradition is not a general transfer of a person to face any case that a requesting country may later choose to bring. The speciality principle is intended to provide a safeguard against prosecution for unrelated offences beyond the basis on which a person was surrendered. The precise scope of that safeguard depends on the extradition arrangement, the offences covered and any consent or waiver that may be obtained afterwards.
At this stage, the defence has raised an objection; there is no reported final judicial determination on it. The CBI has been granted custody for questioning, and the investigation will proceed under the conditions imposed by the court. Whether the extradition point is raised again, and how the prosecution responds, will be an important part of the next phase of the proceedings.
The CBI registered an FIR on December 18, 2024, taking over the investigation from the Chhattisgarh State Economic Offences Bureau after notifications by the state government and the Centre. The agency alleges that Chandrakar, co-accused Ravi Uppal and their associates promoted the Mahadev Book App and operated an online betting network through a system of panel and branch operators.
Investigators have alleged that the network used numerous bank accounts opened on a commission basis to collect and route betting proceeds, including transfers towards the United Arab Emirates. The CBI has also examined the role of associates and the structure through which the alleged operation was run. These claims are allegations contained in the investigation and prosecution case; they must be tested in court and should not be treated as findings of guilt.
The case has involved more than one investigating authority. The CBI is examining alleged offences connected with the betting network, while the Enforcement Directorate has pursued a money-laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The agencies’ cases overlap in their examination of the alleged proceeds and the people said to have facilitated the network, but each investigation has its own legal basis and procedural steps.
The Indian Express reported that the ED had filed five prosecution complaints in a special PMLA court in Raipur against 116 accused, including companies, and had attached assets worth nearly ₹9,000 crore as suspected proceeds of crime. That figure is the value of assets the ED says it has attached in the case, not a court determination that all of those assets are proceeds of crime or that Chandrakar personally owns the entire amount. The distinction between alleged proceeds, attached property and assets finally confiscated after adjudication is legally significant.
Other accused and alleged associates remain part of the wider investigation. Reports have referred to Ravi Uppal, Shubham Soni and Vikas Chhaparia, among others, as people whose roles are being examined or whose whereabouts have drawn investigators’ attention. Their individual legal positions and the status of proceedings can differ, and no assumption should be made that every person named in the wider case has been charged or detained in the same proceeding.
The Mahadev case has drawn attention because investigators allege a cross-border structure involving app-based betting, local panel operators, financial intermediaries and funds routed outside India. The investigation has consequently required cooperation across jurisdictions and coordination between agencies dealing with criminal offences and alleged money laundering. The return of Chandrakar from Oman gives the CBI direct access to question a central accused, but it does not by itself establish the full structure or scale of the alleged operation.
The CBI’s questioning is expected to focus on how the app and its network operated, who controlled the various panels and accounts, how money moved between users and operators, and what role Chandrakar is alleged to have played. Investigators may also examine communications, financial records and links between the alleged betting proceeds and assets identified by the agencies.
Forensic and financial evidence will be important because an online betting operation can involve multiple layers between the user interface, local agents, payment channels and the people alleged to control the business. Establishing who exercised control over an account or platform requires more than demonstrating that a transaction passed through it. Investigators must connect evidence to specific individuals and show the role attributed to each accused.
The custody period will also be watched for developments on the extradition objection. The defence’s argument raises a question about the relationship between the ED and CBI proceedings and the terms under which Oman agreed to surrender Chandrakar. The CBI’s position, the extradition documentation and any further order by the court will determine how that issue is addressed. Until the court rules, it would be inaccurate to say that the extradition has been held invalid or that the CBI has been barred from questioning him.
The case also highlights the practical difficulty of investigating alleged digital betting networks that operate across borders. Evidence may be distributed across devices, payment intermediaries, companies and servers in different countries. Investigators must preserve digital records, trace financial transfers and demonstrate the connection between the alleged operators and the transactions relied upon. International assistance and the admissibility of evidence can become important as the case moves from investigation to trial.
For now, the immediate procedural development is limited but important: the Raipur court has granted the CBI eight days of custody, permitted questioning in Delhi and, according to the defence, imposed safeguards for access to lawyers and family and CCTV monitoring of interrogation. The speciality objection remains contested. The next public developments to watch are any further court order on extradition, the agency’s response to the defence argument and whether investigators file additional material or seek further custody.
Chandrakar remains an accused, not a convicted person. The allegations about the betting network and money flows are yet to be established through the judicial process. The investigation’s credibility will depend on the quality of the evidence, respect for the court’s conditions and a clear distinction between allegations made by agencies and facts proved in court.