Raj Kundra moves Bombay High Court to quash PMLA cognizance, ED summons in Bitcoin case
Raj Kundra, Bombay High CourtPublished on:28 Jul 2026, 2:47 pm2 min readListen to this articleBusinessman Raj Kundra, husband of actress Shilpa Shetty, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the. . .
Raj Kundra, Bombay High CourtPublished on:28 Jul 2026, 2:47 pm2 min readListen to this articleBusinessman Raj Kundra, husband of actress Shilpa Shetty, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the cognizance order and summons issued to him by a special PMLA court in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) Bitcoin‑linked money laundering case [Ripusudan Raj Kundra v. Enforcement Directorate]. The petition came up before JusticeAshwin Bhobeon Tuesday when the ED sought time to take instructions. The Court acceded to the request and adjourned the case to August 6 for further hearing. Justice Ashwin D BhobeThe case arose from a 2019 prosecution complaint filed by the ED against directors of Variable Tech Pte Ltd, Gainbitcoin. com promoter Amit Bhardwaj and others, in which the special court had taken cognizance in February 2024. A further supplementary complaint was filed in September 2025 by which Kundra was added as an accused. According to ED, Kundra received 285 Bitcoins—valued at around ₹150. 47 crore—from Bhardwaj between July and August 2017, and refused to disclose wallet details or surrender the Bitcoins. The allegations also include a low‑value sale transaction with Shetty in respect of their Juhu “Ocean View” flats to allegedly disguise the origin of funds. On January 5, the special PMLA court took cognizance of a supplementary prosecution complaint of September 2025 and initiated proceedings against Kundra. This order and the consequent summons of January 7 have been challenged by Kundra before the High Court. Kundra has contended that both the cognizance order and issuance of summons suffered from a fundamental procedural illegality. Advocate Prashant Patil for Kundra argued that the special court failed to comply with the mandate under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which introduces a proviso requiring that “no cognizance of an offence shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. ”He submitted that after BNSS came into effect, cognizance on complaints in pending investigations is required to be governed by BNSS provisions and not the corresponding sections under the now repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Patil pointed out that the January 5 order took cognizance against Kundra without issuing notice or affording him a hearing. Therefore, it is ultra vires and liable to be set aside, he said. He also apprised the Court that Kundra had appeared before the special court pursuant to the January 2026 summons and secured bail.