Government officials took ‘protection money’, need to identify: Why CBI sought custody of Mahadev app’s Chandrakar

The CBI asked for Saurabh Chandrakar’s custody because it says he can help investigators uncover how the alleged betting syndicate operated and who protected it. The agency specifically wants to identify police officers, government officials, and politicians who allegedly received protection money in Chhattisgarh.

The CBI also alleged that Chandrakar and others earned Rs 450 crore each month from the app. It said panel operators collected betting money through bank accounts opened fraudulently with genuine documents, then sent funds to promoters such as Chandrakar, who was based in the UAE. The agency also alleged that Chandrakar took young people from Chhattisgarh to Dubai to support the syndicate.

The court granted eight days of CBI custody, although the agency had requested ten. Chandrakar’s lawyer challenged the custody under extradition law, arguing that he had been extradited in an ED case, not the CBI case.

In this case, “protection money” refers to alleged payments made to public servants in exchange for allowing an illegal betting operation to continue. The CBI said Chandrakar and other accused paid this money to prevent legal action against panel operators working in Chhattisgarh.

The alleged recipients included police officers, other government personnel, and politicians. According to the CBI’s court submissions, payments moved through hawala channels. Police officers allegedly received the money and distributed it further to other personnel, officials, and politicians. The agency also alleged that some recipients used the money to buy properties.

The allegation matters because it describes possible corruption supporting the entire operation, rather than isolated betting activity. The CBI told the court it needed to identify the public servants who accepted these payments. These claims remain allegations in the case, alongside charges including corruption, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.

The CBI alleged that Saurabh Chandrakar, Ravi Uppal, Shubham Soni, and others made Rs 450 crore per month through the betting app. That figure describes the alleged monthly scale of the syndicate since 2020, according to arguments made in court.

The alleged division was heavily weighted toward the promoters. The CBI counsel said Chandrakar and the other accused kept about 70% to 80% of the money. The remaining 20% to 30% went to panel operators. A panel was described as an online shop for an illegal gambling app, so operators were the people running those access points.

The court heard these figures while considering the CBI’s request for Chandrakar’s remand. The agency was granted eight days of custody. The alleged revenue, payment structure, and protection-money claims form part of an investigation into cheating, forgery, conspiracy, corruption, and gambling-law violations.

A panel operator was described as an online shop for an illegal gambling app. In practical terms, it was an access point through which betting activity could be handled. The CBI’s allegations suggest that these operators formed the local layer of the wider syndicate in Chhattisgarh.

The agency said panel operators received several bank accounts opened fraudulently using genuine documents. Those accounts allegedly collected betting money from users. The funds were then sent onward to the app’s promoters, including Chandrakar, who was based in the UAE. The CBI also alleged that promoters kept most of the revenue and paid the remaining share to panel operators.

This structure allegedly separated local collection from the promoters controlling the wider operation. It also gave investigators a trail involving account holders, transfers, and panel operators. The CBI’s custody request focused partly on understanding these arrangements and identifying officials allegedly paid to prevent action against the panels.

Hawala is an informal system for transferring value through a network of intermediaries. The sender gives money to one intermediary, while another intermediary pays the recipient elsewhere. The parties settle between themselves, so the transaction may not appear as a normal transfer between the sender’s and recipient’s bank accounts.

That feature can make hawala attractive for people trying to conceal the source, destination, or purpose of payments. However, the source article does not explain the system’s mechanics in detail. In this case, the CBI alleged that Chandrakar and others used hawala channels to send protection money to police officers, officials, and politicians.

The alleged route matters because investigators are trying to identify both the public servants who received the money and how it was distributed. The CBI said police officers passed payments to other personnel, government officers, and politicians. These claims are part of the broader corruption investigation, not findings of guilt.

When officials allegedly accept payments to ignore illegal activity, the operation can continue instead of facing investigation, closure, or prosecution. It can also gain time to attract more participants, move more money, and build a wider network. The alleged conduct may create a second offence: corruption involving the people responsible for enforcement.

The CBI said protection money was allegedly paid to prevent legal action against panel operators in Chhattisgarh. It alleged that payments went through police officers, who distributed them to other personnel, government officials, and politicians. The agency also said several officials and politicians used the money to buy properties.

The immediate consequence in this case is a broader investigation. The CBI wants to identify the public servants who allegedly accepted the money and understand how the syndicate operated. Chandrakar was given eight days in CBI custody. The FIR includes corruption, along with cheating, forgery, conspiracy, and gambling-law offences.

Betting apps are not governed by one worldwide rule. Each country or region decides which forms of gambling, betting, licensing, advertising, and online operation are permitted. A jurisdiction may allow certain activities under regulation, while another may prohibit them. The article states that betting apps are legal in several parts of the world but not in India.

Gambling laws determine what operators may do by defining lawful activities and setting conditions such as licensing, location, age limits, tax duties, and oversight. An operator that follows one jurisdiction’s rules cannot automatically operate legally elsewhere. In this case, the FIR invokes the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, and the Public Gambling (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976.

The legal question is therefore tied to Indian law and the alleged conduct in Chhattisgarh, not simply to whether betting apps exist elsewhere. Chandrakar’s lawyer argued that betting apps are legal in several places, but the case concerns allegations under Indian criminal and gambling laws.