WinZo Games Pvt Ltd.
Saumya Singh Rathore WinZo Games Pvt Ltd. Bengaluru: A Bengaluru sessions court on December 26 granted bail to Saumya Singh Rathore, co-founder and director of WinZo Games Pvt Ltd, in a money-laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), while rejecting the bail plea of co-founder Paavan Nanda and allowing the agency to take him into custody for further interrogation.
The common order was passed by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge M. Chandrashekar Reddy in a complaint arising out of alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case is titled Enforcement Directorate vs Saumya Singh Rathore & Paavan Nanda.
READ: Supreme Court mandates disclosure of cross-cases in chargesheets to avoid trial delays
The court held that Rathore was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, which exempts women-accused from the stringent “twin conditions” governing bail under the law. As a result, the court found that continued custody of Rathore was not warranted.
“Accused No.1 being a ‘woman’, her case falls under the proviso to Section 45(1)(ii) of the PML Act and the twin conditions are not applicable in her case,” the court observed.
The ED registered the money-laundering case on November 6 based on predicate offences reflected in three FIRs lodged in Bengaluru, Rajasthan and Delhi. As part of the investigation, the agency conducted search and seizure operations at Rathore’s residence and at the company’s premises between November 18 and 22, following which both Rathore and Nanda were arrested on November 26.
READ: Non-Signatories Cannot Compel Arbitration, Supreme Court Rules in HPCL Case
According to the ED, WinZo’s gaming operations involved alleged manipulation through algorithms and bots, leading to wrongful gains of about ₹177 crore. The agency further alleged diversion of funds to overseas subsidiaries and laundering of proceeds of crime through cloud-based infrastructure hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS). The investigation also points to alleged identity misuse of a large number of users and transnational fund flows of approximately USD 55 million.
Both accused denied the allegations, claimed full cooperation during the searches and questioning, and challenged the legality of the ED’s search and seizure operations.
Allowing Rathore’s bail plea, the sessions court noted that she had already undergone substantial custodial interrogation. “Merely because she has to be confronted with statements of her employees or that some more evidence is to be collected, that will be no ground for seeking Accused No.1 for further custody by ED,” the judge said.
Addressing concerns about possible tampering with evidence, the court held that such apprehensions could be mitigated by imposing appropriate bail conditions. Rathore was directed to be released on a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties. She has also been ordered to surrender her passport, not leave the country without prior permission of the court, and cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
In contrast, the court denied bail to Paavan Nanda, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA continued to apply to him. The judge said he was not satisfied that Nanda had made out a prima facie case for bail.
READ: How Impeachment of Judges Works in India — Process, History, and the Latest Cases
“I am unable to subscribe to his view that he has reasonably made out a case that he is not guilty of the alleged offences and that he is unlikely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses,” the court observed.
The judge accepted the ED’s submission that the investigation had expanded significantly in scope. “The materials on record would show that the investigation is becoming more transnational and that huge amount of data is collected to prima facie show the complicity of Accused No.2,” the order noted.
Accordingly, the court granted the ED further custody of Nanda from December 27 to December 30. It also directed that Nanda should not be subjected to any form of ill-treatment and should be provided daily access to his legal counsel during custody.
The ED was represented in the proceedings by advocate Madhu N. Rao. Rathore was represented by Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, while Nanda was represented by Senior Advocate M.S. Shyam Sundar.
