ORDER : P.N. Prakash, J. 1. Madhan, the petitioner herein, was arrested by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate on 23.05.2017 for offences u/s. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity "the PMLA"). After completing the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate has filed a complaint in C.C. No. 15 of 2017 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai (Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) for offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 and 8(5) of the PMLA. Madhan continues to be in judicial custody and hence, he seeks bail. Since Section 45(1) of the PMLA places additional limitations on this Court for grant of bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C, this Court is constrained to narrate the facts in detail. 2. In the opinion of this Court, the facts obtaining in this case would provide a fertile plot for a crime thriller movie. Some of the incontrovertible notorious facts are as under: 3.1 Pachamuthu @ Pari Vendhar is the Founder-Chancellor of SRM University and also the Founder-President of India Jananayaka Katchi (IJK) party, a political outfit and his family runs a private TV channel by name Vendhar TV. SRM University is a deemed university and offers medical, engineering, law, arts and science courses. The said University runs colleges in Chennai, Trichy, Sikkim and also in various parts of Andhra Pradesh. Like any other private institution, SRM University also has seats under Management quota for MBBS and MD courses which are in great demand and naturally, has a price tag. 3.2 It was a smooth sailing for Pachamuthu till the Supreme Court mandated that admission to MBBS and MD courses can be made only for those qualifying in the NEET examination. On 22.05.2016, the State authorities confirmed that admission under the Management quota to MBBS and MD courses in all the private institutions, including deemed universities, can be only via NEET and this proved to be a game changer. 3.3 On 28.05.2016, Madhan, who is concededly a prominent member of the IJK party and Proprietor of Vendhar Movies, a film production house, left a note addressed to Pachamuthu and his friends and also his family members, purportedly to be a suicide note and disappeared. The said note was circulated in Whats App and it became viral. 3.3 On 28.05.2016, Madhan, who is concededly a prominent member of the IJK party and Proprietor of Vendhar Movies, a film production house, left a note addressed to Pachamuthu and his friends and also his family members, purportedly to be a suicide note and disappeared. The said note was circulated in Whats App and it became viral. The note runs to around 5 pages in which Madhan has stated that he has handed over the money collected by him from the prospective students to Pachamuthu and has requested him to provide P.G. and U.G. admissions to those students from whom he got money as per the list given by him or alternatively, to return the money to those students in the event of NEET becoming mandatory. 3.4 On 29.05.2015, Madhan's mother lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam Police Station, requesting the police to trace her son. Madhan's disappearance and the suicide note left by him created panic amongst those who had parted with their money for getting admission and so, one Dr. K. Jayachandran, MD, DCH, gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, on 01.06.2016 and the said complaint was forwarded to the Central Crime Branch for investigation. 3.5 In the said complaint, Dr. K. Jayachandran has stated as follows: "Through my friends and well wishers I heard that one Mr. Mathan, who has been the Head of the company Vendhar Movies has been closely involved in getting admissions for students aspiring MBBS course in SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur for the past 8 to 10 years. Due to his close association with the Management of SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur. He (Mr. Mathan) is also involved in getting admission for Post graduate courses in Medicine like MS and MD in the same SRM Medical College with the full knowledge of the college management. For the purpose of securing a stable future for my son K.J. Dakshin as advised by my friends and well-wishers, I approached one Mr. Babu, District Secretary of Dindigul District of Indian Jananayaga Katchi (IJK) which is presided by the respected Mr. Pachamuthu (alias) Mr. Paarivendhar who is also the Chancellor of SRM Group of educational institutions. Mr. Babu of IJK Party (Mobile No. 98424 99948) took us to one Mr. Mathan, Head of Vendhar Movies to his company office at the basement shopping complex of Doshi Gardens, Vadapalani. Mr. Pachamuthu (alias) Mr. Paarivendhar who is also the Chancellor of SRM Group of educational institutions. Mr. Babu of IJK Party (Mobile No. 98424 99948) took us to one Mr. Mathan, Head of Vendhar Movies to his company office at the basement shopping complex of Doshi Gardens, Vadapalani. Mr. Babu and Mr. Mathan assured us getting MBBS seat for my son K.J. Dakshin in SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur, Chennai. Because of the assurance given by Mr. Babu and Mr. Mathan for securing MBBS seat for my son in SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur, Chennai, I paid as tuition fees Rs. 53 lakhs (Rs. 53,00,000/-) in cash as demanded by Mr. Mathan at his office in the presence of Mr. Babu of IJK party and one Mr. Sudhir (Mobile No. 95000 69119), a very close associate of Mr. Mathan, who received the above said amount in cash in the presence of another accountant (name not known) counted the currency notes being handed over. A small slip bearing the candidate name (K.J. Dakshin, my name, SRM/MBBS/ADMISSION without mentioning the amount being paid was given. This amount was paid on 30.01.2016 to Mr. Mathan well in advance to the announcement of the mandatory National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for nationwide MBBS admission by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. When NEET was mandatory for MBBS admission by the Supreme Court as anxious parents we enquired about the current status of our son K.J. Dakshin's admission to the MBBS course in SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur over phone as well as directly going to the new office of Vendhar Movies at Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai, All our calls were attended by Mr. Sudhir, close associate of Mr. Mathan of Vendhar Movies and he re-assured us of getting a seat for MBBS at SM Medical College, Kattankulathur (Mob. No. 95000 69119) till a week back. Even one week back on 23rd May 2016 we received a call from Vendhar Movies office checking particulars of my son (Name, Registration No. & Marks obtained in +2 exams) then also they assured the seat at SRM Medical College at Kattankulathur. But, on 30.05.2016, I was shocked to see the news in the Tamil newspaper Dhinamalar that Mr. Mathan of Vendhar Movies had been missing. Our phone calls to Mr. Sudhir and company office were not answered. But, on 30.05.2016, I was shocked to see the news in the Tamil newspaper Dhinamalar that Mr. Mathan of Vendhar Movies had been missing. Our phone calls to Mr. Sudhir and company office were not answered. When we went to the Vendhar Movies office at Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani in the morning on 31.05.2016, we found the premises locked. When we went to the SRM Medical College office, Kattankulathur to enquire about our son status, the office people did not respondent properly. Since my son's fixture is at stake, and our hard earned money of 27 years of Tamil Nadu Government service in the possibility of being cheated by the undermentioned persons: 1. Mr. Babu of IJK Party (98424 99948) 2 Mr. Sudhir of Vendhar Movies (95000 69119) 3. Mr. Mathan of Vendhar Movies 4. Management, SRM Group of Education Institutions I request you to kindly take necessary action to bring forth justice at the earliest, since the future of my son and many other students future also being affected by the unscrupulous action of the above said persons with anti social intentions." 3.6 The Central Crime Branch conducted preliminary enquiries and registered a case in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC on 04.06.2016 against (1) Babu of IJK party, (2) Sudhir of Vendhar Movies, (3) Madhan of Vendhar Movies and (4) the Management of SRM Group of educational institutions. 3.7 As the news of the registration of a regular FIR became widespread, more and more parents started thronging the office of the Commissioner of Police and giving complaints. Some of the complainants stated that they had met Pachamuthu in his office, who, in turn, had directed them to meet Madhan for securing college admission to their wards. They have further alleged in their complaints that they met Madhan in his Vendhar Movies office in Doshi Gardens, Vadapalani, where, the deal was struck and the money was handed over to Madhan and that, in acknowledgment of receipt of money, Madhan had given them chits mentioning the name of the students and the courses. 3.8 On 02.06.2016, Madhan's mother filed H.C.P. No. 1122 of 2016 alleging that her son was in the illegal custody of some persons and sought production of his body. 3.8 On 02.06.2016, Madhan's mother filed H.C.P. No. 1122 of 2016 alleging that her son was in the illegal custody of some persons and sought production of his body. On 09.06.2016, when the said Habeas Corpus Petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor produced a memorandum dated 09.06.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Police, in which, the Commissioner has ordered transfer of the man-missing case from the file of the Virugambakkam Police Station to the file of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai and he has appointed Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, to be the Investigating Officer for the "man-missing case" and the case in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016. The Division Bench recorded the said memorandum and adjourned the case. The police filed status reports from time to time before the Division Bench narrating the steps taken by them to trace out Madhan and also the stage of investigation of C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016. 3.9 During the course of investigation, police arrested one Vijayapandian on 30.06.2016, one Bargavan Pachamuthu, a functionary of IJK party on 22.07.2016 and one Babu on 23.07.2016 for their involvement in the offence. By then, nearly 133 complaints were presented to the Commissioner of Police, out of which, in considerable number of complaints, direct involvement of Pachamuthu stood disclosed. Therefore, the police arrested Pachamathu on 26.08.2016 and he was remanded to judicial custody. In the remand application, police have clearly stated the name of the complainants who have disclosed the involvement of Pachamuthu and Madhan in the scam. 3.10 Pachamuthu filed a bail application in Crl. M.P. No. 2300 of 2016 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai (for brevity "the XI Metropolitan Magistrate") which was dismissed on 01.09.2016. There against, Pachamuthu approached the Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 14690 of 2016 and came forward to deposit Rs. 75 crores to the credit of C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016, without prejudice to his defence. In view of his undertaking, Pachamuthu was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Chennai on 08.09.2016 on condition that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 75 crores to the credit of CCB.Cr. No. 143 of 2016 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. Accordingly, Pachamuthu deposited Rs. 75 crores on 09.09.2016 and earned his reprieve from judicial custody. In view of his undertaking, Pachamuthu was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Chennai on 08.09.2016 on condition that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 75 crores to the credit of CCB.Cr. No. 143 of 2016 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. Accordingly, Pachamuthu deposited Rs. 75 crores on 09.09.2016 and earned his reprieve from judicial custody. 3.11 On coming to know that Pachamuthu had deposited Rs. 75 crores, the victims filed applications under Section 451, Cr.P.C. for return of cash to them from and out of the sum of Rs. 75 crores deposited by Pachamuthu. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate returned all the petitions with an endorsement that the victims should file sufficient proof for having paid money and also sufficient proof showing the source of such money. Most of them re-represented the applications with some proof of having paid money as well as its source. 3.12 While enquiry was pending before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of these petitions, another development took place side by side. In a similar cheating case relating to medical college admission, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.O.P. No. 2422 of 2016, passed an omnibus order, the relevant portion of which reads thus: "7. The police must ascertain as to how the de facto complainant was able to part with huge sum for getting a medical seat. The one who receives bribe alone cannot be punished, even the person who gives bribe, under any circumstances, is also to be blamed. All of us have been taught that "charity begins at home". But, nowadays, sorry state of affairs prevails that children who seek medical seats on payment are indirectly taught by their parents that "corruption begins at home". To put an end to this offence, the Income Tax Department should be set in motion, so that they will probe into the assets and liabilities of such offenders and ascertain their assets from which they have paid the bribe." The above order received so much of publicity in the media that all those parents who were before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking refund of their money, did not seriously prosecute their petitions. 3.13 Meanwhile, on 21.01.2017, Madhan was arrested by the State police at Thiruppur in Tamil Nadu and was remanded to judicial custody. In view of his arrest, H.C.P. No. 1122 of 2016 was closed. 3.13 Meanwhile, on 21.01.2017, Madhan was arrested by the State police at Thiruppur in Tamil Nadu and was remanded to judicial custody. In view of his arrest, H.C.P. No. 1122 of 2016 was closed. On 23.01.2017, Madhan was granted default bail under Section 167(2) by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, on condition that he should deposit Rs. 10 crores. Madhan approached the High Court in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017 for modification of the order passed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. While so, Pachamuthu filed Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 for quashing the FIR in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016. In the said petitions, almost 98 victims filed impleading petitions and they were impleaded as party respondents. 3.14 During the hearing of Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 and Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017, Pachamuthu came forward to provide bank guarantee for Rs. 10 crores "to give a quietus to the issue". To be more precise, it may be profitable to record verbatim the relevant portion of the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 and Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017 as under: "7. With regard to the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017, the petitioner therein claims that he had already handed over all the monies so collected by him to the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017, which is stoutly refuted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017. With regard to the petition filed in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017 to modify the bail order passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 submits that the petitioner herein (Mr. Pachamuthu) shall furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 crores to give a quietus to this issue. 10. As an interim measure, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 is hereby directed to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 crores on or before 27.03.2017 in respect of Cr. No. 143 of 2016, before the Trial Court. The petitioner in Crl. 10 crores to give a quietus to this issue. 10. As an interim measure, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 is hereby directed to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 crores on or before 27.03.2017 in respect of Cr. No. 143 of 2016, before the Trial Court. The petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 is directed to hand over the original bank guarantee along with necessary affidavit to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, through his counsel." (emphasis supplied) 3.15 In the same order, the learned Judge modified the condition imposed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate by directing Madhan to deposit the property documents in lieu of deposit of Rs. 10 crores. It may also be necessary to extract paragraph Nos. 11 to 13 of the said order as under: "11. The petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017 is hereby directed to deposit the following title deeds (as claimed in the reply affidavit of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch - II, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai 600007) registered in his name/his mother/relatives, in lieu of modification of the bail order passed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Sadiapet, Chennai. If the original documents are with the bank authorities, certified copies of the same may be deposited. 1. Document No. 837/16 (SRO, Virugambakkam) relating to Plot No. 2, Door No. 7C, New No. 60, Gangappa Naidu Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. (Land measuring 1,235 sq. ft. with 3 floors measuring 3,000 sq. ft.) 2. Document No. 1277/16 (SRO, Virugambakkam) relating to Flat No. AF 15, 15th Floor, Orchards Yarlagada Venkanna Chowdry Residential Park, No. 85-87, Orchards, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. (Flat measuring 3,024 sq. ft.) 3. Document No. 2903/16 (SRO, Roorkee) relating to Flat No. E-314, First Floor, Village Badedi, Rajputan PPF & the Roorkee, Uttrakhand (Flat measuring 328 sq. ft., 30.48 sq.m.) 4. Document No. 535/16 (SRO, Pauri) relating to land measuring 200 sq.m. in Dhunariwahlga Kheda, Tehsil Pauri District, Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand. 5. Document No. 536/16 (SRO, Pauri) relating to land measuring 400 sq.m. in Dhunariwahlga Kheda, Tehsil Pauri District, Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand. 6. Document No. 537/16 (SRO, Pauri) relating to land measuring 200 sq.m. in Dhunariwahlga Kheda, Tehsil Parui District, Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand (land measuring 200 sq.m.) 12. 5. Document No. 536/16 (SRO, Pauri) relating to land measuring 400 sq.m. in Dhunariwahlga Kheda, Tehsil Pauri District, Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand. 6. Document No. 537/16 (SRO, Pauri) relating to land measuring 200 sq.m. in Dhunariwahlga Kheda, Tehsil Parui District, Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand (land measuring 200 sq.m.) 12. With regard to the documents lying with the bank authorities, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017 shall create a second charge over the said properties. Required affidavits with regard to charge created over the properties shall also be filed along with the title deeds/certified copies, before the concerned Magistrate. 13. On filing of such documents, the Magistrate shall verify and communicate the same to the registering authorities about the charge created, for making necessary entries in the registering records." (emphasis supplied) 3.16 Pursuant to the modified order passed by this Court, Madhan submitted the original property documents of all the aforesaid properties to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. He also filed an affidavit dated 22.03.2017 sworn to by him before the Superintendent of Prisons, Chennai, about which, more will be stated later. On the strength of all these, he was released from judicial custody on 22.03.2017. Likewise, Pachamuthu also furnished bank guarantee issued by State Bank of Mysore, Chennai, for Rs. 10 crores in favour of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. 3.17 Meanwhile, on 17.03.2017, the Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report in ECIR No. 320/04/2017 under the PMLA and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate issued summons to Madhan, Pachamuthu, Sukumar, P.A. to Pachamuthu, Gunasekaran and seven parents who had given money to Madhan for getting MBBS/MD admission for their wards and had lost out. 3.18 Incontrovertibly, Madhan appeared officially before the Enforcement Directorate on 06.04.2017, 11.04.2017, 19.04.2017, 05.05.2017 and 23.05.2017 and his statements were recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA. On 23.05.2017, after his statements were recorded, he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA and was sent to judicial custody. 3.18 Incontrovertibly, Madhan appeared officially before the Enforcement Directorate on 06.04.2017, 11.04.2017, 19.04.2017, 05.05.2017 and 23.05.2017 and his statements were recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA. On 23.05.2017, after his statements were recorded, he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA and was sent to judicial custody. Under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., a complaint for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA should be filed within 60 days from the date of first remand, failing which, the accused would be entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint on 21.07.2017 before the Principal Sessions Court (Special Court for PMLA cases), Chennai as against only Madhan for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the PMLA. Hence, the present bail petition. 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it may be necessary to state here that the edifice of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is predicated upon the acquisition of property by commission of an offence mentioned in the Schedule of the PMLA and projecting the same as an untainted property. 5. The Enforcement Directorate has filed a counter affidavit narrating the facts and circumstances of the case and also citing the legal provisions in extenso to deny bail to Madhan. 6. Section 45 (1) of the PMLA reads as under: "45 Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." In view of the above provision, jail is a rule and bail an exception under the PMLA. 7. This Court called for records in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 from the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, in order to get a wholesome picture of the allegations against Madhan. 7. This Court called for records in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 from the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, in order to get a wholesome picture of the allegations against Madhan. In fact, the very allegation levelled against Madhan stems from the registration of the case in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. An offence under Section 406 IPC is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA, whereas, an offence under Section 420 IPC is a scheduled offence. 8. The specific allegation of Dr. K. Jayachandran, in his complaint to the police, which forms the basis of registration of the FIR in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 is that, Babu (A1) of IJK party, Sudhir (A2) of Vendhar Movies, Madhan (A3) of Vendhar Movies and the Management of SRM Group of educational institutions (A4), had collected Rs. 53 lakhs for giving MBBS admission to his son Dakshin on 30.01.2016 and thereafter, they neither gave admission to his son nor did they return money to him. After this case was registered, about 133 parents submitted individual complaints, most of which, clearly stated that they had paid Madhan on the instructions of Pachamuthu. That led to the police arresting Pachamuthu on 26.08.2016. Pachamuthu came forward to deposit Rs. 75 crores, of course, without prejudice to his defence and therefore, he was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Chennai, on the strength of the undertaking given by him. He also deposited Rs. 75 crores with the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, as could be seen from the records on the file of the said Court. Pachamuthu filed Crl.O.P. No. 3154 of 2017 for quashing the FIR in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016, in which, this Court had directed him to give bank guarantee for an additional sum of Rs. 10 crores which has also been furnished by him to the satisfaction of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate and the said quash application still awaits orders. 9. It must be remembered that the police have not yet filed the charge sheet in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016. 10 crores which has also been furnished by him to the satisfaction of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate and the said quash application still awaits orders. 9. It must be remembered that the police have not yet filed the charge sheet in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016. It must also be borne in mind that an offence under Section 420 IPC is a compoundable offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. When this is the magnitude of the allegations against Pachamuthu, this Court is indeed surprised as to the basis on which the Enforcement Directorate hurriedly arrested Madhan, completed the investigation in 60 days and filed the complaint only as against him for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. 10. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate submitted that Madhan, in his statements to the Enforcement Directorate, had confessed that he had collected a sum of Rs. 91 crores from 133 parents and therefore, he had committed an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for Madhan submitted that the statement given by Madhan that he had collected a sum of Rs. 91 crores from 133 parents, cannot be isolated from his assertion that he had handed over that sum to Pachamuthu. He also submitted that there is absolutely no material to show that, with the money so collected, Madhan had acquired the four properties mentioned in the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate. 12. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 13. Collection of money by an educational institution for the purpose of giving admission to MBBS/MD courses is not, per se, an offence under Section 420 IPC. It is an offence under the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 (Act No. 57 of 1992). However, even that Act will not apply to SRM University, because, the State Government has not fixed the fees for MBBS/MD courses for SRM University as required under Section 4 of that Act. The Supreme Court, in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 , has held in unequivocal terms that there should not be any collection of capitation fee. However, there is no law as of today which makes mere collection of capitation fee, even if the Government had not fixed the fee structure, a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court, in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 , has held in unequivocal terms that there should not be any collection of capitation fee. However, there is no law as of today which makes mere collection of capitation fee, even if the Government had not fixed the fee structure, a cognizable offence. Had such a law been made pursuant to the observations of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra) and the same included as a scheduled offence under the PMLA, the loot by private players under the guise of promoting education would have been stymied long ago. Now, it has become entrenched in our system and people have reconciled to this as a way of life. 14. When the police case is so specific that Pachamuthu shared the common intention under Section 34 IPC and used Madhan for collection of capitation fee, the Enforcement Directorate has projected a different picture in the complaint as if Madhan had collected the money from 133 parents and had not given the same to Pachamuthu, but, has purchased four properties in his name that have been listed in the complaint. The Enforcement Directorate has built up this case on the strength of Pachamuthu's statement to the effect that he had not asked Madhan to collect any money nor was the money given to him. Of course, Pachamuthu has not completely disowned Madhan. He has stated that Madhan is an office bearer of his political outfit, viz., IJK party. It is quite strange as to how the Enforcement Directorate could have expected Pachamuthu to be so guile to confess to them, "Yes, Yes! I only asked Madhan to collect money from the students and he has handed over the money to me". Pachamuthu would have given such a confession only if he had credulously believed that the Enforcement Officer is also a priest of a Catholic church to whom confessions can be made for a ticket to heaven, albeit the fact that such a confession would land him up in jail in this life. With a battery of legal minds at Pachamuthu's command, it is too naive for the Enforcement Directorate to have expected Pachamuthu to confess. With a battery of legal minds at Pachamuthu's command, it is too naive for the Enforcement Directorate to have expected Pachamuthu to confess. In fact, even during the hearing of this bail application, an advocate (whose name this Court does not want to refer to and cause embarrassment to him) intervened on behalf of Pachamuthu to refute the contentions of the counsel for Madhan. This Court refused audience to that counsel on the ground that this is a bail petition and not a public interest litigation. 15. At this juncture, it may be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1989-1-L.W. (Crl.) 80 S.N. : AIR 1988 SC 1883 , Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), wherein, it has been held as under: "275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same.....The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient....." 16. The following observation of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 , is also worth quoting at this juncture. "21. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view......." Only on account of the difficulties in getting direct evidence to prove the conspiracy charges, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act has been drafted in a manner to take care of such hard situations. 17. According to the police and the Enforcement Directorate, 133 parents have been cheated to the tune of Rs. 91 crores. The Enforcement Directorate has listed 4 properties belonging to Madhan, totally valued at Rs. 6,34,50,000/- as representing the proceeds of the crime. Even assuming for a moment that these are proceeds of the crime, this Court poses to itself the question as to where is the balance of Rs. 84,65,50,000/-. 18. 91 crores. The Enforcement Directorate has listed 4 properties belonging to Madhan, totally valued at Rs. 6,34,50,000/- as representing the proceeds of the crime. Even assuming for a moment that these are proceeds of the crime, this Court poses to itself the question as to where is the balance of Rs. 84,65,50,000/-. 18. It is trite law that the statement of a suspect recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA by an Enforcement officer, if it admits the commission of an offence, is admissible as a piece of confession during trial, since the officers of the Enforcement Directorate are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 19. Now, this Court has to see whether the Enforcement Directorate had gathered materials to show that the four properties were purchased by Madhan from and out of the sum of Rs. 91 crores, which, he is said to have got from 133 parents. 20. The four properties listed in the complaint are extracted hereunder: SCHEDULE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES S.No. Document No. and Date/Name of Owner Address of the property Value of the property (ascertained by the Registration Authority) 1. 837/2016, 15.02.2016 1,235 sq. ft. of land bearing Plot No.2, Door No.7C, New No.60 Gangappa Naidu Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26 Rs.1,90,00,000/- 2. 1277/2016 05.04.2016 Shri Madhan 1119, 1250 sq.ft. undivided share of land in 60,132 sq.ft. bearing “Orchards, Yarlagadda Venkkanna Chowdary Residential Park” in Saligrmam Village, NSK Salai, (Arcot Road), Saligramam, Chennai-93 Rs.4,25,00,000/- 3. 748/2013 15.03.2013 Shri Madhan 2.90 Acres of land and house bearing Survey No.231, Village, Vadakkevila Iravipuram Quilon 691011, Kerala Rs.9,50,000 4. 3782/2007 08.10.2007 Shri C.B. Balachandran (Previous name of Shri, Madhan) and Sumalatha (second wife of Shri S. Madhan as per records 3.23 acres of land and house bearing Survey No.201, Village Mundaykal, Iravipuram, Quilon 691 011, Kerala Rs.10,00,000/- Total Rs.6,34,50,000/- 21. Admittedly, the statements of Madhan were recorded by the Enforcement Directorate on 06.04.2017, 11.04.2017, 19.04.2017, 05.05.2017 and 23.05.2017. This Court plodded through all the statements of Madhan and found that the following questions have been posed to him: "Question No. 1 Explain about your 2 wives and their residential addresses and where you stay permanently? Ans. 1. My first wife name is Sindhu. She is staying in 762, 4th Avenue (First Floor), Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai 600 101. I applied divorce on 2015. Recently, I withdraw the petition. Ans. 1. My first wife name is Sindhu. She is staying in 762, 4th Avenue (First Floor), Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai 600 101. I applied divorce on 2015. Recently, I withdraw the petition. My second wife Smt. Sumalatha is staying with me in No. 15, Apple Block, Appasamy Orchid, Vadapalani, Chennai. My parents also staying with me. My father, viz., Balakrishnan, Professor in Hindu College, Nagercoil. He is retired. My mother R.S. Thangam aged 70 is a retired Headmistress in Poonthamali Higher Secondary School." Question No. 5 Explain about your movable and immovable properties purchased by you during the year 2015-2017 held in your name and your family no. name. Answer 5: I have purchased one flat in Vadapalani. a. in my name No. 15, Apple Block, Appaswamy Orchid, Vadapalani, Chennai. It was purchased on 2016. Value of the property is Rs. 2 crores. (Availed in bank loan in Axis Bank in Ramapuram Branch). b. Near about 800 sq. ft. of independent house property in Vadapalani purchased in my name. Value of the property is Rs. 25 lakhs. c. one flat in Roorkee purchased by me in my friend name Sekhar. Value of the property Rs. seven lakhs (Roorkee/Uttarakhand). d. One Ashram property near to Ganga river bed. Paid amount of Rs. 75 lakhs to my friend Sachin who stayed in Rishikesh. It was not yet registered in my name so far. I have paid Rs. 75 lakhs to my friend Sachin on 2015. Not able to remember the date. e. My BMW car X6 vide Registration No. TN 19 L 6508. It is name of Manikandan. He is my friend and bank loan was availed by Mr. Manikandan and monthly instalment of Rs. 1.60 lakhs was paid by me for the past one year. Other movable and immovable properties details purchased by me during the year of 2000 to 2015 which was already handed over to you. The copy of sale deed and other property documents I will produce you in few days. The above mentioned all immovable original documents was recovered by CCB Chennai and the same was produced before the High Court, Chennai. Apart from this, my first wife Smt. Sindhu have two lockers in SBI, Chennai. Two lockers in SBI, Thirumangalam, it was allotted by SBI. Those who are deposited 5 lakhs rupees in the same branch. The above mentioned all immovable original documents was recovered by CCB Chennai and the same was produced before the High Court, Chennai. Apart from this, my first wife Smt. Sindhu have two lockers in SBI, Chennai. Two lockers in SBI, Thirumangalam, it was allotted by SBI. Those who are deposited 5 lakhs rupees in the same branch. My wife Smt. Sindhu keeping her jewels and some silver items." (emphasis supplied) 22. On a perusal of the questions which have been posed by the Enforcement Directorate to Madhan which have been extracted above, it could be easily inferred that the Enforcement Officer was anxious to know about the two wives of Madhan and as to with whom he would stay permanently. Thereafter, the Enforcement Officer had miserably failed to ask one simple question to Madhan, "Please explain the source for the purchase of the properties." For posing this question, it does not require a Sherlock Holmian intelligence for the Enforcement Directorate sleuths. It only requires sheer common sense. On the strength of Madhan's statements, the Enforcement Directorate has passed an order dated 29.06.2017 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA attaching the above stated four properties, when Madhan was in judicial custody. 23. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that for passing an order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, it is not necessary for the Enforcement Directorate to issue a show cause notice to Madhan and that Madhan would get an opportunity to explain the source of income for the purchase of properties only in the adjudication proceedings under Section 6 of the PMLA. 24. This Court cannot have any quarrel with the proposition propounded by the learned Additional Solicitor General vis-à-vis the adjudication proceedings. But, here, it is not the adjudication proceedings which is under challenge. Rather, it is the bail application which is under consideration before this Court in a case in which the Enforcement Directorate has completed the investigation and has filed a complaint against Madhan. Had the Enforcement Directorate asked Madhan to explain the source of income for the purchase of the four properties and had he given a false explanation or had he refused to give an explanation, that could have been held as an incriminating circumstance showing his guilty mind. 25. Had the Enforcement Directorate asked Madhan to explain the source of income for the purchase of the four properties and had he given a false explanation or had he refused to give an explanation, that could have been held as an incriminating circumstance showing his guilty mind. 25. The learned Additional Solicitor General placed strong reliance upon Section 24 of the PMLA which shifts the burden of proof on the accused and contended that it is for Madhan to prove before the Trial Court that he had purchased the properties not from the proceeds of crime. 26. It is true that Section 24 does shift the burden of proof on the accused. However, the said presumption can be applied in a criminal case, only if the prosecution submits sufficient materials to satisfy the ingredients of the penal provision, viz., Section 3 of the PMLA. In this case, Pachamuthu himself has deposited Rs. 75 crores and has given a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 crores, to which, the Enforcement Directorate has turned a Nelson's eye. But, the Enforcement Directorate asserts that the four properties were acquired by Madhan from and out of the money he had received from 133 parents. In fact, records from the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court show that after this Court, in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017, had directed Madhan to deposit the title deeds of the properties, Madhan has sworn to an affidavit dated 22.03.2017 attested by the Superintendent of Prisons (since he was in jail then), wherein, he has explained the source by which he had purchased the properties. How is it that the Enforcement Directorate did not even attempt to get a copy of this affidavit from the XI Metropolitan Magistrate and had instead, proceeded to complete the investigation and file the complaint? 27. Be that as it may, Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, has filed a status report before the High Court in Crl.O.P. No. 3710 of 2017 in which he has cited the same four properties, valuing each of the properties far less than the value assigned by the Enforcement Directorate. 28. As regards property Nos. 3 and 4, even according to the Enforcement Directorate, they were purchased in the year 2013 and 2007 respectively, much prior to the registration of the FIR in C.C.B. Cr. 28. As regards property Nos. 3 and 4, even according to the Enforcement Directorate, they were purchased in the year 2013 and 2007 respectively, much prior to the registration of the FIR in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 and therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration as properties purchased from the proceeds of crime because the crime itself was committed only between 2015 and 2016. 29. Now, what remain are the property Nos. 1 and 2, of which, the prime property is property No. 2, which is valued at Rs. 4.25 crores by the Enforcement Directorate. This property has been valued at Rs. 2.80 crores by the State police. In the affidavit dated 22.03.2017 filed by Madhan before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, he has given an explanation which is as under: "8. I submit that I had gone for a bank loan for the purchase of the said Saligrammam property in Doc. No. 1277 of 2016 with Axis Bank, Ambattur Branch and the same was sanctioned on 5th of March 2016. The market value of the property is assessed as rupees three crore seven lakhs and eight thousand only and the loan was dispersed for a sum of rupees one crore ninety nine lakhs seventh three thousand two hundred only by the Axis Bank and the repayment was scheduled as 180 emi for a period of fifteen years as sum of rupees Two lakh twenty thousand seven hundred and eighty four rupees payable monthly for 180 months." 30. Thus, from the above, it is clear that this property has been purchased by availing loan from Axis Bank and that Madhan is required to pay equated monthly instalment of Rs. 2,28,784/- to Axis Bank towards repayment of the said loan. 31. Coming to property No. 1, the learned counsel for Madhan submitted documents and explained that the said property belongs to Madhan's distant relative by name Kanakasabapathy; Madhan agreed to purchase the property for about Rs. 80 lakhs and had assured Kanakasabapathy that he would pay the sale consideration in August 2016 after the release of his film Motta Shiva Ketta Shiva in July 2016; Kanakasabapathy had leased out the said property to some persons and Madhan had agreed to pay about Rs. 20 lakhs to the lessees of Kanakasabapathy from whom Kanakasabapathy had received money; accordingly, Madhan had issued two post-dated cheques dated 30.08.2016 for Rs. 20 lakhs to the lessees of Kanakasabapathy from whom Kanakasabapathy had received money; accordingly, Madhan had issued two post-dated cheques dated 30.08.2016 for Rs. 40 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of Kanakasabapathy; Madhan went into abscondence in May 2016 and the Central Crime Branch freezed his account, owing to which, the two cheques issued by Madhan were dishonoured on the ground "account blocked"; thus, till date, Kanakasabapathy has not received the sale consideration of the property and the possession of the property is still with him; the Enforcement Directorate had not even bothered to find out as to who is in possession of the property and also as to whether Kanakasabapathy, the real owner, had received the entire sale consideration. 32. Thus, it is clear that Madhan has given a reasonably satisfactory explanation with regard to the acquisition of property Nos. 1 and 2, which, prima facie shows that he has not used the proceeds of the crime in C.C.B. Cr. No. 143 of 2016 for the purchase of these two properties. Further, it is not the case of the Enforcement Directorate that Madhan is a person of no means. There are materials with the Enforcement Directorate to show that he is the Proprietor of Vendhar Movies and is into film business, apart from being a broker for SRM University. That apart, he is also an Income Tax assessee and he has submitted copies of his Income Tax returns to the Enforcement Directorate, as could be seen from his statements. 33. Yet another disquieting feature observed by this Court is that the Enforcement Directorate has recorded the statements of 7 parents out of 133 parents who are said to have paid money for MBBS/MD admission for their wards. The statements of the following 7 parents show as if they had handed over the money to Madhan and there is no reference of Pachamuthu in their statements: "i. K. Sripriya, W/o S. Krishnan ii. K. Dakshinamoorthy, S/o Kuppusamy iii. D. Murugadasan, S/o Dharmaraj iv. P.L. Kannappan, S/o K.N. Palaniappan v. Nancy Davis, W/o Davis vi. K. Jayachandran. S/o Karuppannan vii. Austin, S/o K. Chellappan" 34. K. Dakshinamoorthy, S/o Kuppusamy iii. D. Murugadasan, S/o Dharmaraj iv. P.L. Kannappan, S/o K.N. Palaniappan v. Nancy Davis, W/o Davis vi. K. Jayachandran. S/o Karuppannan vii. Austin, S/o K. Chellappan" 34. Thus, the Enforcement Directorate has recorded statements of 7 parents out of 133 parents and each one of them has been handed over a small chit said to have been given by the staff of Madhan, a sample of which is extracted as under: "SRM/ADMISSION MBBS/KTR/2016-17 ANIRUDH KRISHNAN S/o SRINIVASAN KRISHNAN Sd/" However, these 7 persons have given separate written complaints to the Commissioner of Police, which is available on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, in which, two persons, viz., K. Dakshinamurthy and Nancy Davis have stated about the role of Pachamuthu in the racket qua admission to MBBS/MD courses. In fact, Nancy Davis, in her typewritten and signed complaint dated 16.06.2016 given to the Commissioner of Police, has stated that she met Pachamuthu at his residence on 31.10.2015 along with her husband and her relative Prince and requested for MBBS admission for her son and that Pachamuthu directed them to meet his son Ravi and Madhan. She has further stated in her complaint that she met Madhan at his Vendhar Movies office in Vadapalani and paid Rs. 55 lakhs to Madhan and Sundar, for which, they have given a kaccha receipt. Similarly, K. Dakshinamurthy has given a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, wherein, he has stated that it was Pachamuthu who had directed him to pay Rs. 1.05 crores to Madhan for admission to M.S. (Surgery) course in SRM University. Whereas the statements of Nancy Davis and K. Dakshinamurthy recorded by the Enforcement Directorate do not say a word about their meeting with Pachamuthu and they proceed as if they had all the transactions with Madhan. 35. Apart from the above 7 parents, about 50 parents, in their written complaints to the Commissioner of Police, have implicated Pachamuthu. What is intriguing is, why have the Enforcement Directorate recorded the statements of only 7 parents out of 133 parents and that too, in a distorted fashion exonerating Pachamuthu, but, implicating Madhan. Whom are they wanting to save? 36. The learned Additional Solicitor General sought to explain this by submitting that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is still in progress, but, as regards Madhan alone, the investigation has been completed. Whom are they wanting to save? 36. The learned Additional Solicitor General sought to explain this by submitting that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is still in progress, but, as regards Madhan alone, the investigation has been completed. This submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General runs contrary to the following averments in page No. 33 of the prayer (c) of the complaint, "c. To permit the complainant to file additional/supplementary complaint, if any on completion of investigation as the further investigation is still going on." 37. From the above, it is apparent to this Court that a shoddy investigation has been hurriedly done to prevent Madhan from being released on compulsory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Even accepting the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General that investigation has been completed vis-à-vis Madhan fully and finally, yet, for the reasons given by this Court above, this Court is unable to arrive at a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Madhan is guilty of such an offence. 38. As regards the second limitation, viz, that Madhan is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the Enforcement Directorate has not produced any material to show that apart from the present offence relating to 133 complaints, Madhan was involved in any other offence earlier. With the bluff having been blown now, be it SRM University or any other private University, would not enlist the services of Madhan to be their broker for him to keep committing such offences. The expression "any offence" in Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA cannot mean a traffic offence under Section 304-A IPC or a matrimonial offence under Section 498-A IPC. It can possibly mean either a scheduled offence or an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. 39. Further, from the materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate and the police, this Court is able to apparently see that Madhan is not the solitary player in this sordid episode. It can possibly mean either a scheduled offence or an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. 39. Further, from the materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate and the police, this Court is able to apparently see that Madhan is not the solitary player in this sordid episode. There are prima facie materials to show that a well-oiled syndicate had existed, by which, affluent parents who were over-ambitious in wanting to make Doctors of dull heads, were directed by the SRM University Management to contact Madhan at his Vendhar Movies office in Doshi Gardens, Vadapalani, where, Madhan, Gunasekar and Sudhir struck deals and received cash, for which, Sudhir issued receipts to the parents like the sample extracted above, on the strength of which, admissions were given to their wards and the cash went to the kitty of the management, as could be seen from the confession of a co-accused, who has even handed over a videograph to the police showing the handing over of the loot at the office of SRM University in Mambalam. 40. To a pointed question posed by this Court as to why Madhan hosted a suicide note in the social media and absconded, instead of appearing before the police and spilling the beans, Mr. Infant Dinesh, learned counsel for Madhan, candidly submitted that Madhan was caught between the devil and the deep sea and had he not sensationalised the episode by stirring the hornet's nest, he would have been eliminated. 41. Post World War-II, Welfare States on Bismarckian principles have evolved in the West where Public Health and Education is provided by the State, leaving liquor vending at the hands of private players. However, sadly, the picture is otherwise in our State. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to grant bail to Madhan not because he is an angel, but, because the evidence produced by the Enforcement Directorate does not pass muster the parameters of Section 45(1) of the PMLA for denial of bail. It is made clear that whatever is stated above is only for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application and shall not be construed as a clean chit given by this Court to Madhan. It is made clear that whatever is stated above is only for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application and shall not be construed as a clean chit given by this Court to Madhan. PMLA is a welcome legislation, but, it is a sledge-hammer and should not be used to crack nuts, lest, it should earn the wrath of the common man resulting in its very repeal by the legislature. It should be used against sharks and not shrimps. In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Sessions Judge, (Special Court for PMLA cases), Chennai and on further condition that: "[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Principal Sessions Judge, (Special Court for PMLA cases), Chennai, may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court for PMLA cases), Chennai, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the Trial Court itself as laid down by the Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC."