ORDER : Since all the three anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case i.e ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B of 2011, corresponding ECIR-02/Pat/09/AD(B) in which the cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the PML Act, 2002 and the same is pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Tiwari, learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi hence these applications are being heard together and disposed of by common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B of 2011, corresponding to ECIR-02/Pat/09/AD(B) in which cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the PML Act, 2002. 4. The case of prosecution, in short, is that one Bipul Hazra, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) Govt. of India, Ranchi Sub-Zonal Office, Ranchi had filed supplementary Complaint on 14.12.2011 under section 45 of PML ACTpunishable under section 4 of the said Act for commission of offence of money laundering involving proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 4.43 crores and this Court after taking cognizance of the offence has framed charge in the said prosecution Complainant bearing No. ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh on 25.09.2012 and matter is pending before this Court. After filing of the Prosecution Complaint dated 14.12.2011, the role of the accused person and his associates into commission of the said offence has been further investigated in the light of facts revealed in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI subsequently on 26.03.2012 i.e. after filing of the prosecution complaint under section 45 of PMLA, 2002 on 14.12.2011. After further investigation, the supplementary complaint dated 14.12.2011 has been filed under the contents/facts of above mentioned complaints dated 14.12.2011 for the offence of money laundering committed by the accused persons, the complainant is the authorized person for filing the supplementary complaint in view of Notification No. S.O. 1274(E) dated 13th September, 2005 issued by the Central Government and Government of Indian Notification No. F.N.6/14/2008-ES dated 10.06.2008 read with addendum dated 4th August, 2012. 5. 5. It is alleged that an F.I.R bearing number 09/09 dated 02.07.2009 was registered at the police station Nigrani, DistrictRanchi against Shri Madhu Koda and others for the commission of offences punishable under sections 409/420/423/424/465/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 7,10,11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR was filed on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shri Rajiv Sharma vide complaint no. 01/09 dated 01.07.2009. This case was initially taken up for investigation by the Vigilance Bureau of Ranchi as per order dated 01.07.2009 of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The investigations were initiated under the provision of PML ACTby the Directorate of Enforcement vide case No. ECIR/02/PAT/2009 dated 08.10.2009 for suspected offence of money laundering in respect of proceeds of crime generated out of commission of Scheduled offences mentioned in Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 5 of part B as well as part C of the erstwhile Schedule to the PMLA. In this case, Shri Madhu Koda and 8 other persons were arrayed as accused persons. These persons were Shree Binod Siha, Vikash Sinha, Sunil Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, Dhananjay Kumar Choudhary. All allegedly associates of Shri Madhu Koda and Shri Kamlesh Singh, Bhanu Pratap Shahi and Bandhu Tirki, the then Ministers in the Government led by Shri Madhu Koda. It is further alleged that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) 4700/2008 was also filed in this Court by one Shri Durga Oraon, alleging corrupt practices by Shri Madhu Koda and others. Another PIL bearing No. 2252 of 2009, was filed by one Shri Aman Munda, making similar allegations against Shri Madhu Koda, Sanjay Kr. Choudhary, Binod Sinha and others, seeking directions of the Hon'ble High Court for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, Directorate of Enforcement was also made one of the respondents in the W.P (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008. 6. Choudhary, Binod Sinha and others, seeking directions of the Hon'ble High Court for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, Directorate of Enforcement was also made one of the respondents in the W.P (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008. 6. It is further alleged that the Complaint No. 01/09 dated 01.07.2009 filed by Shri Rajiv Sharma, inter alia revealed that Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh was elected from Hussainabad Assembly constituency in the year, 2005 and held the Public Office as Minister for Water Resource, Excise, Civil and Food Supplies Departments, Government of Jharkhand from February, 2005 to January, 2009, while Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh was holding the pubic office, charges of the corruption were levelled against him. It was alleged that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, by corrupt or illegal means. 7. The Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi after investigation into the allegations, filed a charge-sheet no. 06/2010 dated 28/01/2010 against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh for offences under section 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120-B of I.P.C and under sections, 7, 10, 11 and 13(2) read with section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge-sheet filed by the Vigilance Bureau inter alia alleged that the accused had acquired illegal assets to the tune of Rs. 1,75,15,918/- in violation of the above said sections of I.P.C and PC Act. As per charge-sheet, several immovable properties, in addition to bank accounts and fixed deposits were identified as acquired by Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, disproportionate to his known source of income. 8. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 04/08/2011 in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700/2008, transferred the investigations in Jharkhand Vigilance Case No. 09/09 to the CBI for further investigation. In compliance of this order, the Jharkhand Vigilance Case No. 09/09 was reregistered by the CBI as case No. RC5(A)/2010/AHD/Ranchi. On the basis of investigations, the C.B.I also filed a charge-sheet dated 26.03.2012 before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 9. Charge-sheet filed by the CBI further revealed that accused Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh had acquired disproportionate assets of the tune of Rs. On the basis of investigations, the C.B.I also filed a charge-sheet dated 26.03.2012 before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 9. Charge-sheet filed by the CBI further revealed that accused Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh had acquired disproportionate assets of the tune of Rs. 5,46,07,597/- disproportionate sources of income during the period March, 2005 to July, 2009, in his own name and in the name of his family members while functioning as a public servant and thus, allegedly committed offences under section 109 of I.P.C and under section 13(2)/read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The details of income and expenses by the CBI, during the check period of March 2005 to July, 2009 were found and mentioned in the complaint petition. 10. It is further alleged that charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I and outcome of investigation under PMLA, where certain additional properties have been identified, value of properties in the name of each of the accused persons, namely, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and his HUF (accused no. 1) Shri Madhu Singh, (accused no. 2) and Shri Surya Sonal Singh-petitioner in A.B.A No. 4278 of 2016, Smt. Ankita Singh-petitioner in A.B.A.4286 of 2016 and in the name of Smt. Manisha Singh, who has not been made accuse, has been presented in a Tabular form, annexed to this supplementary Complaint as Annexure- A1 to A6 and subsequently, a summary of these properties held by them has been provided as Annexure-B, the total of which comes to Rs. 5,83,64,197/-. The said properties have been identified in money laundering and as such, provisional attachment order dated 24.07.2013 holding these properties as proceeds of crime was issued in terms of the provisions of section 5 (1) of PML Act, 2002. 11. Investigation in respect of income and properties acquired by Shri Surya Sonal Singh(petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4278 of 2016), the properties identified during investigation conducted by the CBI as well as during investigations under PMLA, which have been claimed as acquired by Shri Surya Sonal Singh have been detailed in tabular form. Perusal of this Annexure- reveals that Shri Surya Sonal Singh, during the Check period and thereafter, has acquired, both immovable and movable properties, (I) value of immovable propertiesRs.1,58,51,003/- (ii) value of movable propertiesRs. 6,11,564/- total Rs. 1,64,62,567/-. Perusal of this Annexure- reveals that Shri Surya Sonal Singh, during the Check period and thereafter, has acquired, both immovable and movable properties, (I) value of immovable propertiesRs.1,58,51,003/- (ii) value of movable propertiesRs. 6,11,564/- total Rs. 1,64,62,567/-. During investigation, Shri Surya Sonal Singh had claimed before the C.B.I, also before the Income Tax authorities that he had acquired these properties out of following source of income (i) Loan from sister Smit AnkitaSingh(petitioner in A.BA. No. 4286 of 2016) Rs. 1 crore (ii)Business income Rs. 11,71,141/-. It has been further revealed that Shri Surya Sonal Singh has paid an additional amount of Rs. 77,51,003/- in the year, 2012 that is after the check period to complete the transactions relating to purchase of immovable properties at Vipul Trade Centre, Gurgaon, having total value of Rs. 1,58,51,003/- (the remaining amount has been paid from the funds identified during check period) as detailed at Annexure-4, and has taken possession of the properties. Response to summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (as amended), Shri Surya Sonal Singh attended this Directorate on 07.09.2011. During his statement, Shri Surya Sonal Singh stated that he had taken loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from his sister namely Smt. Ankita Singh, W/o Shri Narendera Mohan Singh of Mumbai, which was utilized for acquisition of properties at Vipul Trade Centre, Gurgaon. Shri Surya Sonal Singh also submitted copies of acknowledgments of his ITRs, which did not reflect any loan received from his sister. 12. To examine the truthfulness of said loan, statement of Smt. Ankita Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) was recorded under section 50 of the Act on 12.10.2011. Smt. Ankita Singh confirmed that she had given loan of Rs. One crore to her brother Shri Surya Sonal Singh in two equal installment of Rs. Fifty lacs each on 22.07.2008 and 28.08.2008 after taking loan from her husband, Shri Narendra Mohan Singh. Further she stated that the said transactions were duly disclsoed in her Income Tax Returns. 13. During Investigation Smt, Ankita Singh submitted copy of her income tax return for the Ay, 2009-10 and 2010-11 analysis of which revealed that the said loan amount as contended had not been reflected in the ITRs filed by Smt. Ankita Singh. 14. Further she stated that the said transactions were duly disclsoed in her Income Tax Returns. 13. During Investigation Smt, Ankita Singh submitted copy of her income tax return for the Ay, 2009-10 and 2010-11 analysis of which revealed that the said loan amount as contended had not been reflected in the ITRs filed by Smt. Ankita Singh. 14. In view of above summons under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (as amended) on 02/01/2012 were issued to Shri Narendra Mohan Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4285 of 2016). In response to said summons, Shri Narendra Mohan Singh, during recording the statement on 08.02.2012 admitted that he had given loan of Rs. 1,26,63,000/- to his wife namely Smt. Ankita Singh for helping her brother namely Shri Surya Sonal Singh in business. Shri Narendra Mohan Singh also submitted that the said loan was duly reflected in his return of income. Regarding the source of funds for extending the loan, it was submitted that the said loan was for extending the loan, it was submitted by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh that he was in the business of Real Estate and he ha taken loan/advance from many parties. He submitted copies of his ITRs for the AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 and relevant bank statements. 15. To examine the above say, the bank statements and income tax returns of the aforesaid three persons were scrutinized during investigation. 16. ITRs filed by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh for the A.Y, 2009-10 (FY 2008-09) on 01/07/2010 during which the said transactions have taken place, declaring a total income of Rs. 27,51,970/- only. As per para 1 of Schedule AIR of said ITR 4, Shri Narendra Mohan Singh has not reflected any cash deposits aggregating to ten lakh or more, in any savings account in a banking company to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applied, whereas, as discussed hereinafter, substantial cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs have been made in one of his accounts. Thus, the declaration made in the ITR with regard to cash deposit was found to be not only false but the above deposits in cash have been suppressed intentionally, so as to disguise the source of these funds. As per balance sheet, incorporated in the said ITR 4, it appears that no loan/fund has been reflected as taken as well as given by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh. As per balance sheet, incorporated in the said ITR 4, it appears that no loan/fund has been reflected as taken as well as given by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh. Further, item 6 of the balance sheet reveals that there is not entry in respect of any sundry debtors/creditors during the year. Thus the submission made by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh during investigation under PML ACTthat he was in real estate business and he had taken loan from various parties to provide loan of Rs. 1.26 Crore to his wife and that these transactions were duly reflected in his ITR was not only false but was made to mislead the investigation with malafide intent and to save them from legal action. 17. ITRs filed by Smt. Ankita Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) for A.Y 2009-10 also revealed that the said transactions with regard to receipt and grant of loan have not been reflected in the ITRs. 18. Smt. Ankita Singh has filed her return of income (ITR1) for A.Y. 2009-10 on 08.07.2010 declaring income of Rs. 4920/- only. The column 24 of the said ITR regarding cash deposits aggregating to ten lakh or more in any savings account in a applied, has been declared as NIL. 19. ITR filed by Shri Surya Sonal Singh for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 was also made during investigations. Shri Surya Sonal Singh has filed his ROI (ITR3) for A.Y.2009-10 filed on 25/03/2010 declaring total income as Rs. 7,50,118/- and for A.Y 2010-11 filed on 31.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,42,337/- 20. On the other hand, the cash flow statement, submitted by Shri Surya Sonal Singh during his examination under PMLA, reveals that he has stated to have taken an unsecured loan of Rs, one crore from his sister in financial year, 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 and therefore, the cash flow statement is not reliable and appears to have been made to justify the transactions which were otherwise suppressed and also to misled the investigation. 21. In view of above, it is obvious that the explanation of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh during his statement regarding source of fund and loan of Rs. One crore to Shri Surya Sonal Singh, through his wife is concocted and false., intended at misleading the investigations. 21. In view of above, it is obvious that the explanation of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh during his statement regarding source of fund and loan of Rs. One crore to Shri Surya Sonal Singh, through his wife is concocted and false., intended at misleading the investigations. Further the statement of Smt. Ankita Singh regarding loan to her brother is also not matching with the income tax return filed by her. Therefore, the source of funds which have finally been taken in the books of account of Shri Surya Sonal Singh is undoubtedly illegal and that is why attempt has been made by all the persons concerned to give a version so as to project the transactions as genuine. As Shri Surya Sonal Singh does not have any significant income of his own and the funds in question have finally reached his accounts to make him and his family the real beneficiary of funds, the source of the funds would obviously be the same family, which is headed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, who has been accused of commission of offences scheduled to the Act. 22. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the statement of bank account of aforesaid persons show dubious pattern of transactions and supports the above conclusion. On scrutinizing the bank statement of account number 21536 in the name of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh, maintained at Samata Sahakri Bank Ltd, Mumbai, it is revealed that there was a cash deposit of Rs., fifty lacs on 22.07.2008 just before the transfer of same amount that is Rs. Fifty lacs, on the same day through cheque number 620881 to the account of Smt. Ankita Singh (a/c no. 21535). Further, the same amount stood transferred to the account of Shri Surya Sonal Singh account number 036901501633 maintained with ICICI Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi on the same day that is 22.07.2008 by Smt. Ankita Singh. 23. Again the second installment of loan of Rs. Fifty lacs was given by Smt. Ankita Singh to Shri Surya Sonal Singh on 28.08.2008 vide cheque no. 615533. The account of Smt. Ankita Singh has been credited by Rs. 49 lakhs on 26.08.2009, transferred through the same account number 21536 of a/c no. of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh and also credited by Rs. One lac by cash on 28.08.2009 together leading to transfer of Rs. Fifty lacs to Shri Surya Sonal Singh. 615533. The account of Smt. Ankita Singh has been credited by Rs. 49 lakhs on 26.08.2009, transferred through the same account number 21536 of a/c no. of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh and also credited by Rs. One lac by cash on 28.08.2009 together leading to transfer of Rs. Fifty lacs to Shri Surya Sonal Singh. The pattern of aforesaid transactions is dubious and the pattern of layering of money in cash can be understood as under; Date Rs. 10.05.2008 500/- 07.07.2008 20,00,000/- 22.07.2008 50,00,000/- 11.08.2008 13,05,000/- Total 83,05,500/- Total cash deposit as on 28.08.2008 during F.Y 2008-09 in the account of Smt. Anikta Singh (a/c no. 21535); 30.05.2008 500/- 28.08.2008 1,00,000/- Total 1,00,500/- 24. Total cash deposit prior to 29.08.2008 that is the date by which Shri Surya Sonal Singh has got a total loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from her sister namely, Smt. Ankita Singh who, in turn, has stated to have taken a loan of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- from her husband namely, Shri Narendra Mohan Singh (as per statement recorded by this directorate) is as under; In the account of Shri. Narendra Mohan Singh 83,05,500/- In the Account of Smt. Ankita Singh 1,00,500/- Total 84,06,000/- The above transactions reflect the dubious nature of deposit of cash in the account of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh. The loan amount has neither been reflected in the ITR of Shri Narendra Mohan Singh nor in the ITR of Smt. Ankita Singh. In the light of overwhelming evidence, it is, therefore obvious that cash deposits made in the account of Narendra Mohan Singh are not belonging to Shri Narendra Mohan Singh but it has been deposited in his account for ultimate transfer and use by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh through his son Shri Surya Sonal Singh. 25. Under the circumstances and for reasons detailed hereinafter, it is evident that the accused person namely, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Smt. Madhu Singh and Shri Surya Sonal Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4278 of 2016, Smt. Ankita Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) and Shri Narendra Mohan Singh(petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4285 of 2016) have directed involved themselves in a process/activity connected with proceeds of crime and amounting to Rs. 5,83,64,197/- and thereby acquired/concealed/used it, as well as projected it as untainted property and hence committed the offence under section 3 of the PMLA, 2012, punishable under section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. 5,83,64,197/- and thereby acquired/concealed/used it, as well as projected it as untainted property and hence committed the offence under section 3 of the PMLA, 2012, punishable under section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. A.B.A. No. 4278 of 2016 26. Pressing the anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is son of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, the petitioner has not been proceeded by the C.B.I in its charge-sheet filed before the learned Special Court, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been sought to be implicated in the complaint and summoned on the alleged ground that brotherinlaw of the petitioner namely, Narendra Mohan Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4285 of 2016) had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- to his Ankita Singh(petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) who had advanced a loan of Rs. One crore to her brother Surya Sonal Singh (petitioner) who is the son of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that after conducting enquiries/investigation a complaint in ECIR/02/PAT/09 was filed under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Court of the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 14.02.2011 only against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and on the basis of said complaint the learned Special Judge, Ranchi took cognizance under section 4 of P.M.L. Act against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh on 14.02.2011. 27. It is further submitted that the statements of the complainant stating that Shri Narendra Mohan Singh had not reflected the amounts of loan advanced to his wife namely, Ankita Singh in his income Tax Returns, whereas the Income Tax Return filed by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh clearly reflects that the amount received from third party as well as the amount advanced to this wife namely Ankita Singh is reflected in his Income Tax Return, photo copy of income tax return filed by Shri Narendra Mohan Singh is annexed as Annexure-5 to this application. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs is transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. 28. It is further submitted that the Income Tax Returns filed by Narendra Mohan Singh were put under regular scrutiny under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act. 50.00 lacs is transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. 28. It is further submitted that the Income Tax Returns filed by Narendra Mohan Singh were put under regular scrutiny under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act. The income was duly assessed by Tax Assessment Order under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.12.2011. The receipt was duly considered at the time of assessment and no irregularity has been found in the scrutiny proceeding, copy has been filed vide Annexure- 9 to this application. 29. It is further submitted that as the case of Narendra Mohan Singh was under Scrutiny, the case of income tax return filed by M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd, was also reopened and reassessed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The said issue of cash advance to Narendra Mohan Singh by M/s Bhavesh Metals Ltd. was duly verified, considered and nothing objectionable found. Remaining amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs was transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21536 with Samta Sehkari Bank, Mumbai to account no. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. 30. It is further submitted that the said amount was returned by Narendra Mohan Singh to Dynamic Reality by cheque No. 585368 dated 5.09.2008 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank, Mumbai and the same can be ascertained from the bank statement of Narendra Mohan Singh. The said Ankita Singh being an individual filed her income tax return. The format of the income tax return does not have any column wherein she was required to furnish the details of loan received and advanced. However, the same is duly reflected in the balance sheet attached to the ITR filed by Ankita Singh and the same has duly been acknowledged by the Income Tax Department. 31. It is further submitted that even the assessment of Ankita Singh was reopened under sections 148 of the Income Tax Act and it was found that the said entries were duly reflected and the same can be ascertained from the assessment order for the assessment year, 2009-10. 31. It is further submitted that even the assessment of Ankita Singh was reopened under sections 148 of the Income Tax Act and it was found that the said entries were duly reflected and the same can be ascertained from the assessment order for the assessment year, 2009-10. The opposite parties have admitted that the petitioner has shown the entire transaction in his income tax return but the same was not treated to be reliable by the opposite partied as the aforesaid transactions of Rs. One crore were not reflected in the income tax return filed by Ankita Singh whereas the grounds discussed in the proceeding paragraph clearly indicates that all the transactions were duly shown in the income tax return of Narendra Mohan Singh and Ankita Singh. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the C.B.I has not treated the properties of petitioner as properties of Kamlesh Kumar Singh meaning thereby the C.B.I conducted the investigation relating to schedule offence had found that the properties of the petitioner has not been acquired by generating money from schedule offence by Kamlesh Kumar Singh and once it has been held then no offence of money laundering is made out against the petitioner. The C.B.I has submitted charge-sheet against Kamlesh Kumar Singh and Madhu Singh for the offence under section 109 I.P.C and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereas section 109 of the I.P.C is not under the Schedule offence of P.M.L.A and section 13 of P.C Act has been incorporated as a schedule offence by the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 (21 of 2009) w.e.f. 1.06.2009 whereas the transactions are of 22.07.2008 and 28.08.2008 and as such the aforesaid transaction will not come under the purview of Money Laundering Act as at the time of transaction section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not the schedule offence and Amendment Act, 2009 cannot be given effect to. It is further submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 17.01.2014 passed in Original Complaint No. 204/2013 categorically held that the properties of the petitioner were not acquired by committing the offence of money laundering and accordingly excluded all the five units from the list of properties provisionally attached by the complainant. 33. It is further submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 17.01.2014 passed in Original Complaint No. 204/2013 categorically held that the properties of the petitioner were not acquired by committing the offence of money laundering and accordingly excluded all the five units from the list of properties provisionally attached by the complainant. 33. It is further submitted that Directorate Enforcement after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. Investigation in this case is complete and during investigation the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation, so the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. No. 4285 of 2016 34. Pressing the anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is son-in-law of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and he has no involvement in the alleged occurrence and has not been proceeded against by the C.B.I in its charge-sheet filed before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs is transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21536 with Samta Sahkari Bank, Mumbai to account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. The said amount was received by Narendra Mohan Singh (petitioner) as an advance on account of MoU entered into with Shri Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd. for sale of Flat No. 12 on 6th floor, Jupiter building situated at Veer Ghanekar Marg, Vileparle (East), Mumbai. 35. It is further submitted that the said amount which has been received from M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd is duly reflected in the balance sheet of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd as advance towards purchase of flat and the same can be ascertained from the copy of balance sheet and copy of income tax return acknowledgment of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd. 36. It is further submitted that as the case of Narendra Mohan Singh was under scrutiny, the case of income tax return filed by M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd was also reopened and reassessed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The said issue of cash advance to Narendra Mohan Singh by M/s Bhavesh Metals Ltd was duly verified, considered and nothing objectionable found. 37. The said issue of cash advance to Narendra Mohan Singh by M/s Bhavesh Metals Ltd was duly verified, considered and nothing objectionable found. 37. It is further submitted that the amount has duly been returned by cheque to M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd vide cheque No. 718308 date 09.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- vide cheque No. 723073 dated 17.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- and vide cheque No. 723075 dated 19.06.2010 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- aggregating a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- were paid back as said MoU was cancelled by a deed of cancellation on 08.06.2010 in between petitioner and M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd and the same can be ascertained from the Ledger copy of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd in the books of petitioenr alogn with copy of relevant bank statements. 38. It is further submitted that remaining amount of Rs. 50.00/- lacs is transferred from the account of petitioner being Account No. 21536 with Samta Sehkari Bank, Mumbai to Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. 39. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. 50.00/lacs was received by the petitioenr from Dynamic Reality on 23.08.2008. The said amount was received by cheque being Cheque No. 440267 dated 23.08.2008 in Account No. 21536 of Samata Sahakari Bank, Mumbai. The said amount was returned by the petitioner to Dynamic Reality by cheque No. 585368 dated 05.09.2008 drawn on Samata Sahakari Bank, Mumbai and the same can be ascertained from the bank statement of the petitioner. The petitioner had given a loan of Rs. one crore in two installments dated 22.07.2008 and 23.08.2008 after receipt of advances as stated hereinabove. The grant of loan by the petitioner to his wife was duly reflected in his balance sheet as well as in the balance sheet of Ankita Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016). Grant of loan of Rs. One crore by Ankita Singh to her brother Surya Sonal Singh has also been duly reflected in the balance sheet of Ankita Singh. 40. It is further submitted that Directorate Enforcement after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. Grant of loan of Rs. One crore by Ankita Singh to her brother Surya Sonal Singh has also been duly reflected in the balance sheet of Ankita Singh. 40. It is further submitted that Directorate Enforcement after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. Investigation in this case is complete and during investigation the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation, so the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016 41. Pressing the anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is daughter of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and she has no involvement in the alleged occurrence and has not been proceeded by the C.B.I in its charge-sheet. 42. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 50.00/- lacs is transferred from the account of Narendra Mohan Singh being Account No. 21536 with Samta Sahkari Bank, Mumbai to Account No. 21535 in the name of Ankita Singh with the same bank on 22.07.2008. The said amount was received by Narendra Mohan Singh as an advance on account of MoU entered into with Shri Bhavsh Metals Pvt. Ltd for sale of Flat No. 12 on 6th Floor, Jupiter Building situated at Veer Chanekar Marg, Vileparle (East0 Mumbai. The said amount which has been receive from M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd is duly reflected in the balance sheet of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd as advance towards purchase of flat and the same can be ascertained from the copy of Balance sheet and copy of income tax return acknowledgment of M/s Bhavesh Metals Pvt. Ltd. 43. It is further submitted that Narendra Mohan Singh had given a loan of Rs. One crore in two installments dated 22.07.2008 and 23.08.2008 after receipt of advances as stated hereinabove. The grant of loan by Narendra Mohan Singh to his wife was duly reflected in his balance Sheet as well in the balance sheet of Ankita Singh. 44. It is further submitted that grant of loan of Rs. One crore by the petitioner to her brother Surya Sonal Singh has also been duly reflected in the balance sheet of this petitioner. The petitioner being an individual filed her income tax return. The format of the income tax return does not have any column wherein she was required to furnish the details of loan received and advanced. One crore by the petitioner to her brother Surya Sonal Singh has also been duly reflected in the balance sheet of this petitioner. The petitioner being an individual filed her income tax return. The format of the income tax return does not have any column wherein she was required to furnish the details of loan received and advanced. However, the same is duly reflected in the balance sheet attached to the ITR filed by Ankita Singh and the same has duly been acknowledged by the Income Tax Department. 45. It is further submitted that even the assessment of Ankita Singh was reopened under sections 148 of the Income Tax Act and it was found that the said entries were duly reflected and the same can be ascertained from the assessment order for the assessment year, 2009-10. 46. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. One crore is transferred from the account of the petitioner being account no. 21535 with Samata Sahkari Bank, Mumbai to the account of Surya Sonal Singh, which was received by the petitioner from her husband Narendra Mohan Singh and Rs. 50.00 lacs were transferred on 22.07.2008 vide cheque no. 615531 and remaining Rs. 50.00 lacs were transferred on 28.08.2008 vide cheque no. 615531 and the same can be ascertained from the ledger account of the Surya Sonal Singh in the books of the petitioner. C.B.I conducted the investigation relating to schedule offence and after thorough investigation in relation to the details mentioned above found that the properties of the petitioner was not acquired by generating money by committing schedule offence by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh. 47. It is further submitted that the opposite party by exercising the power conferred under section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act passed the provisional attachment order no. 2/13 on 24.07.2013 and the property of the Surya Sonal Singh purchased after taking loan from the petitioner as discussed above were also attached and for confirmation of the said provisional attachment order original complaint no 204/2013 was field by the opposite parties before the learned Adjudicating Authority under section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 48. 2/13 on 24.07.2013 and the property of the Surya Sonal Singh purchased after taking loan from the petitioner as discussed above were also attached and for confirmation of the said provisional attachment order original complaint no 204/2013 was field by the opposite parties before the learned Adjudicating Authority under section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 48. It is further submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 17.01.2014, passed in Original Complaint No. 204 of 2013 categorically held that the properties of the petitioner were not acquired by committing the offence of money laundering and accordingly excluded all the five units purchased by Surya Sonal Singh from the list of properties provisionally attached by the complainant. 49. It is further submitted that main accused namely, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh has been granted regular bail by this court in B.A. No. 2703 of 2012 and another coaccused namely Smt. Madhu Singh has also been granted regular bail by the this Court in B.A. No 3602 of 2014. 50. It is further submitted that Directorate Enforcement after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. Investigation in this case is complete and during investigation the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation, so the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. 51. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that admittedly the petitioners-Narendra Mohan Singh and Ankita Singh had filed an application seeking quashment of the proceedings, however, this Court on being satisfied that there are sufficient materials constituting an offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has dismissed the said application and therefore no ground for anticipatory bail is apparently made out. 52. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement has further submitted that accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh while holding the post of Public Servant that is Minister in the Government of Jharkhand had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by illegal means. 52. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement has further submitted that accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh while holding the post of Public Servant that is Minister in the Government of Jharkhand had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by illegal means. Investigation was carried by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to the Schedule Offence that is RC 5(A)/2010-AHD-R and a charge-sheet has been submitted vide Charge-sheet No. 3, dated 26.03.2012 against Kamlesh Kumar Singh and his wife Smt. Madhu Singh under section 109 of the I.P.C r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the allegation he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.5,46,07,597/- during the period of March, 2005 to July, 2009. The Enforcement Directorate registered a case vide ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD(B) Dated 08.10.2009 under the provisions of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the offences of Money Laundering act as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. 53. After through investigation, a complaint in ECIR/02/PAT/09 was filed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Court of learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 14.02.2011 against accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh. Said accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh was also taken into custody and his statement was recorded. Investigation was carried out in respect of income and properties acquired by the accused. It was revealed that said accused had acquired huge movable and immovable properties. Summons were issued to accused Surya Sonal Singh and Ankita Singh to substantiate the claim of accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh. However, accused Surya Sonal Singh did not reflect the loan amount in his Income Tax Returns however accused Ankita Singh confirmed that she had given loan of Rs.1 Crore to her brother Surya Sonal Singh in two equal installments of Rs.50 Lacs, after taking loan from her husband-Narendra Mohan Singh. However, her Income Tax Return did not reflect about such loan. However, said Narendra Mohan Singh admitted that he had taken advance from his real estate business and further advanced loan of Rs.1,26,63,000/- to his wife Ankita Singh. However, after perusal of his ITR it was concluded that said source of fund and loan was concocted, false and misleading the investigation. However, said Narendra Mohan Singh admitted that he had taken advance from his real estate business and further advanced loan of Rs.1,26,63,000/- to his wife Ankita Singh. However, after perusal of his ITR it was concluded that said source of fund and loan was concocted, false and misleading the investigation. It was further concluded that said Surya Sonal Singh does not have any significant income of his own and the funds in question have finally reached his account to make him and his family the real beneficiary of funds, the source of funds would obviously be the same family headed by accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh. 54. It is further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations in the instant case i.e. ECIR-02/PAT/09/AD(B) a supplementary complaint has been filed against accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh, petitioner and others alleging that the petitioner and four others are accused being directly involved themselves in a process/activity connected with the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.5,83,64,197/- and thereby acquired/concealed/used it as well as projected it an untained property and hence they have committed the offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the P.M.L. Act 2002. The channeling of money to accused Surya Sonal Singh was done through the petitioner and the same has also been accepted by the petitioner. 55. At the request of the learned standing counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, record of Cr.M.P No. 2686 of 2013 has been called for. The learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement referred to para 14 and 15 of the order dated 22.03.2014 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2686 of 2013 which is quoted below; “14. From perusal of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as contained in Annexure-9 to the petitioners' reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit, it does appear that Adjudication Authority came to the conclusion for the reason that the CBI having investigated the matter, did not find any illegality or irregularity in the transaction of Rs. From perusal of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as contained in Annexure-9 to the petitioners' reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit, it does appear that Adjudication Authority came to the conclusion for the reason that the CBI having investigated the matter, did not find any illegality or irregularity in the transaction of Rs. 1 crore took place between the petitioner no.1 1, 2 and Surya Sonal Singh and the said transaction get reflected from the I.T. Returns and balance sheet of those persons, but the case of Enforcement Directorate as has been made out here, is different, wherein the stand of the Enforcement Directorate is that when the Enforcement Directorate, after investigation made by the CBI, did not find that there may be involvement of these petitioners and Surya Sonal Singh, issued notice in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 50 of PML Act, in response of which, it has been stated by petitioner no. 2 that she had taken loan from her husband petitioner no. 1 and gave it to her brother as loan. The petitioner no. 2 also admitted that he had transferred the said amount to the account of his wife after taking loan, but at that point of time he never disclosed as to from whom loan had been taken. However, during proceeding of this case, name of the parties has been disclosed from whom the loan had been taken. In order to be satisfied with their claims, when the petitioners and Surya Sonal Singh were asked to produced ITRs. They did not produce but in case of none of the petitioners nor Surya Sonal Singh, the factum of aforesaid transactions get reflectd from their ITRs. However, subsequently, it is said that the balance sheet was filed wherein said reflection of giving and taking loan has been shown and under the circumstances when initially in ITRs, submitted by them, they had not disclosed about the said transaction, incorporation of said transaction in the ITRs, subsequently submitted, and even the balance sheet as per the case of the Enforcement Directorate, becomes a suspicious documents, on which documents the Adjudicating Authority has placed his reliance. 15. Further case of the Enforcement Directorate seems to be that when the claim was laid by petitioner no. 15. Further case of the Enforcement Directorate seems to be that when the claim was laid by petitioner no. 1 that he has taken loan from M/s Bhawesh Metal and M/s Ketan Metal, the documents submitted by those firms never disclosed any loan from M/s Bhawesh Metal and M/s Ketan Metal, the documents submitted by those firms never disclosed any loan being given to petitioner no. 1. However, subsequently, some documents were placed showing advancement of the loan to the petitioner no. 1, but those documents in view of the case of the Enforcement Directorate become quite suspicious. In that even, any finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority would not be binding and, thereby, order passed by the Adjudication Authority, would have no adverse effect upon the case of the Enforcement Directorate whereby the petitioners are being prosecuted for commission of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act.” 56. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement has also filed a copy of order dated 01.05.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, at New Delhi whereby both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the order dated 17.01.2014 passed in original complaint no. 204 of 2013 in provisional attachment order dated 24.07.2013 during the pendency of the appeal. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement has further submitted that petitioners are accused of being involved in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime in the instant case and further tried to misdirect the investigation, so considering all these facts, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. 57. Learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement has further submitted that petitioners are accused of being involved in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime in the instant case and further tried to misdirect the investigation, so considering all these facts, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. 57. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement, having gone through the scrutiny of the documents produced on behalf of the parties and the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners, material produced by the learned standing counsel for Directorate Enforcement, following admitted facts emerges that the defence taken in the instant anticipatory bail applications for grant of anticipatory bail have earlier also been taken in the Cr.M.P. No. 2686 of 2016 for quashing the order taking cognizance by the court below which has not been accepted by this Court that the loan was given by Ankita Singh to his brother Surya Sonal Singh and the said Cr.M.P was dismissed, so taking all these facts and also the fact that the prosecution prima facie has been successful in proving the following facts (i) the predicate crime (ii) tainted property, and the property purchased. Section 24 of the Money Laundering Act which provides; “Burden of proof” in any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act; (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering, and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering.” 58. So taking all these facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Surya Sonal Singh (in A.B.A. No. 4278 of 2016) and petitioner-Narendra Mohan Singh(in A.B.A. No.4285 of 2016). Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court in its own merit. 59. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court in its own merit. 59. So far anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioner-Ankita Singh(in A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016) is concerned, taking the fact of provision under section 437 Cr.P.C which makes provision for consideration of bail to the person under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm and also the fact that investigation is complete, prosecution report has been submitted, cognizance has been taken, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner-Ankita Singh in (A.B.A. No.4286 of 2016. Accordingly, petitioner-Ankita Singh in (A.B.A. No.4286 of 2016) is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri B.K. Tiwari, learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B of 2011, corresponding to ECIR-02/Pat/09/AD(B), subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailers shall be local resident of Ranchi district and another bailor must be government servant. It is further directed that petitioner Ankita Singh shall deposit her passport, if any, before the Trial Court and she will physically present before the trial court as and when directed. If she wants exemption from appearance, she will inform the Trial Court in advance. The petitioner shall not leave country without prior permission of the trial court. 60. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the Directorate Enforcement and let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court through FAX. A.B.A Nos. 4278 and 4285 of 2016 rejected. A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016 allowed.