Businessman Raj Kundra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the Special PMLA Court’s cognizance order and Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons in the alleged Bitcoin money laundering case. The petition argues that the Special Court violated Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by taking cognizance without granting him a pre-cognizance hearing. The Raj Kundra PMLA Summons challenge now raises an important question on the procedural safeguards introduced under the BNSS.
Justice Ashwin Bhobe heard the matter and granted the ED time to seek instructions on the petition. The High Court has now scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 6, 2026.
Kundra Challenges Cognizance Order
Advocate Prashant Patil, appearing for Raj Kundra, argued that the Special PMLA Court committed a procedural error. According to him, the Court took cognizance of the supplementary prosecution complaint without first giving Kundra an opportunity to be heard.
He submitted that the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS makes such a hearing mandatory. Therefore, the cognizance order passed on January 5, 2026, is legally unsustainable.
Patil argued that the Court acted beyond its statutory powers by ignoring this requirement. Consequently, Kundra has asked the High Court to quash both the cognizance order and the summons issued thereafter.
ED’s Bitcoin Money Laundering Allegations
The ED’s investigation originates from a 2018 FIR against Amit Bhardwaj, the promoter of Gainbitcoin.com, and the directors of M/s Variable Tech Pte Ltd.
The agency filed its original prosecution complaint in 2019, and the Special Court took cognizance in February 2024.
Later, in September 2025, the ED filed a supplementary prosecution complaint naming Raj Kundra as an accused.
According to the agency, Kundra received 285 Bitcoins worth nearly ₹150.47 crore from Amit Bhardwaj during July and August 2017. The ED alleges that the Bitcoins were intended to establish a Bitcoin cloud mining farm in Ukraine.
The agency also claims that Kundra failed to disclose wallet details, did not hand over the digital assets, and participated in a low-value transfer of Juhu “Ocean View” flats to conceal the alleged proceeds of crime.
BNSS Safeguards at the Center of the Dispute
The petition focuses on the procedural changes introduced by the BNSS, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Unlike the former Section 190 of the CrPC, Section 223(1) of the BNSS requires courts to hear the accused before taking cognizance of a complaint.
Since the Special Court passed the cognizance order after the BNSS came into force, Kundra argues that the new procedural safeguard applied to his case.
He contends that the Court ignored this mandatory requirement, making the entire proceeding legally invalid.
Summons Already Issued, Bail Granted
Following the cognizance order, the Special Court issued summons to Raj Kundra on January 7, 2026.
Kundra appeared before the Court and secured bail on February 20, 2026. However, he continues to challenge the legality of the proceedings.
Through the present writ petition, he seeks to set aside both the cognizance order and the Raj Kundra PMLA Summons. The Bombay High Court will now examine whether the Special Court complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 223(1) of the BNSS before taking cognizance.
