JUDGMENT : 1. The present Application is filed by the Applicant – Original Accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PML Act”) for grant of regular bail on the ground stated in the memo of petition. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows. 3. On the complaint of the Deputy Director, Income Tax (Investigation) Unit – II, Surat, an FIR bearing RC029216A0016 dated 20.12.2016 was came to be registered by CBI / ACB / Gandhinagar for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. As it is revealed, pursuant to the registration of the FIR by CBI, which is a scheduled offence under the PML Act, ECIR/01/STSZO/2016 was registered by the respondent No.2 – Enforcement Directorate, which has been converted into PMLA Case No.5 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and, thereafter, the investigation commenced for the alleged offence under the PML Act. Ultimately, it lead to the investigation and the arrest of the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant filed an application for grant of bail before the Sessions Court and thereafter before this Court. 5. After considering the material and rival submissions made by both the sides, this court vide order dated 12.1.2018 dismissed the application for the reasons recorded, referring to the provisions of the PML Act. 6. As it transpires, a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 67/2007 came to be filed by one Nikesh Tarachandra Shah raising the issues including the constitutional validity of Section 45 of the PML Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made the observations with regard to the bail application where the offence under the PML Act 2002 is made observing that such an application may be heard without application of twin conditions as contained in Section 45 of the PML Act. Therefore, the present petitioner also moved Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2017 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6341 of 2017]. The order passed in the said Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2017 is reproduced herein after: “Leave granted. In writ petition (Criminal) No. 67 of 2017 (Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Therefore, the present petitioner also moved Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2017 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6341 of 2017]. The order passed in the said Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2017 is reproduced herein after: “Leave granted. In writ petition (Criminal) No. 67 of 2017 (Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr.) decided on 23-11-2017, the following operative directions were passed:- “Regard being had to the above, we declare Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. All the matters before us in which bail has been denied, because of the presence of the twin conditions contained in Section 45, will now go back to the respective Courts which denied bail. All such orders are set aside, and the cases remanded to the respective Courts to be heard on merits, without application of the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the 2002 Act. Considering that persons are languishing in jail and that personal liberty is involved, all these matters are to be taken up at the earliest by the respective Courts for fresh decision. The writ petitions and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.” In view of the aforesaid, the present matter is also liable to be remitted back for consideration in terms of the aforesaid. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” The Apex Court has remitted the matter back for consideration in terms of the aforesaid order. Therefore, this matter has been placed before this bench for hearing in light of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above. 7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju appearing with learned Advocate Shri Chetan K. Pandya for the Applicant – Original Accused and learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas appearing with learned APP Shri K.P.Raval for the Respondent. 8. 7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju appearing with learned Advocate Shri Chetan K. Pandya for the Applicant – Original Accused and learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas appearing with learned APP Shri K.P.Raval for the Respondent. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju appearing with learned Advocate Shri Chetan K. Pandya for the Applicant – Original Accused pointedly referred to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and submitted that the present Application for bail may be considered afresh keeping in mind that the twin conditions as mentioned in Section 45 of the PML Act would no longer be applicable, and therefore, this Application may now be considered as per Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He referred to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Raju submitted that Section 3 is the charging section and Section 4 provides for the punishment. He emphasized that the punishment provided is; “May extend to 7 years.” Learned Senior Counsel Shri Raju submitted that the offences are not falling in Part ‘A’ of paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and therefore, as the offence is punishable for 7 years, the bail could be granted as a matter of course as required under Section 439 of Cr.PC once the rigors of Section 45 of the PML Act are no longer applicable. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju submitted that when the sentence is only for seven years, the bail is required to be granted ordinarily. In support of his submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohan Singh, Advocate v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 366 . He also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 . Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju also referred to Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.PC as well as the guidelines or the relevant criteria for the grant of bail. 9. v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 . Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju also referred to Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.PC as well as the guidelines or the relevant criteria for the grant of bail. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju also referred to the background of the facts to emphasize that as such no case is made out and unless it is established with regard to the money laundering that it is a proceed of crime, the presumption could not be made and the provisions of the PML Act may not be readily accepted. He also referred to the charge sheet and submitted that the submissions are made but the charge sheet referred to only one crore and he submitted that the CBI has already submitted the charge sheet and the investigation is over, and therefore, there is no justification to languish the petitioner in jail. He therefore emphasized the relevant criteria for grant of bail. However, learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju referred to the complaint on page 73 and the FIR filed by the CBI at page 101 and submitted that it refers to only 1 Crore 2 Lacs, and therefore, the submissions regarding the provisions of the PML Act are required to be considered. He therefore submitted that the present application for bail may be considered. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandraswami and ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (1996) 6 SCC 751 and pointedly referred to the observations made in paragraph 18 with reference to the nature of offence and Section 437 of Cr.PC and submitted that as observed in that case, Section 437, Clause 1 and 2 are not attracted in case of petitioner also, and therefore, the present application may be allowed. He also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and referred to some of the observations to emphasize that when the investigation is practically over, the right of the accused and liberty may have to be considered. Therefore, again referring to the totality of the background of the facts and material, learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju submitted that the present application may be considered. Therefore, again referring to the totality of the background of the facts and material, learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju submitted that the present application may be considered. He referred to both the FIRs and other papers and also the definition of ‘Proceeds of Crime’ referred to in Section 2(11) of the PML Act. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju strenuously submitted that there is no schedule offence as suggested in the CBI Charge Sheet and still the case against the Applicant under the PML Act is initiated. However, he submitted that in light of the background of the facts, the present application for bail deserves to be considered when the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration with observation that twin conditions as provided in Section 45 of the PML Act would not be applicable. 11. There is another facet whether this court should consider or whether the applicant should move the trial court first as the reservation was made by learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju submitted that when the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is “concerned court” and when it has been clearly observed “remitted back”, it would mean that the matter is remitted back to the concerned High Court, and therefore, this court may consider this application instead of relegating the applicant to file before the trial court first. 12. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas referred to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above and submitted that the concerned court would be the trial court as the applicant is required to approach there where his application for bail was initially considered and declined. Therefore, learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that when the Hon'ble Apex Court has not referred to “concerned court” it would imply the “concerned trial court”, and therefore, this court may not consider such application on merits and the bail application is required to be filed in the first instance before the trial court. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas referred to the background of the facts with details to highlight the modus operandi and how the provisions of the PML Act are attracted with regard to the offence under the PML Act. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas referred to the background of the facts with details to highlight the modus operandi and how the provisions of the PML Act are attracted with regard to the offence under the PML Act. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that the FIR by the CBI is a separate issue as it is filed by CBI for the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with the offences under the IPC. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that it is such an act and omission of the Applicant accused with regard to the money laundering, the special statute will be applicable and the authorities are empowered under the provisions of the PML Act 2002 to proceed against the applicant. He pointedly referred to several details and manipulations as alleged, that how the number of accounts with different banks have been operated at the time of demonetization of the currency of higher denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs.1000/-. He submitted that there may be some fake names or fake accounts resulting in the alleged offence of forgery etc. which are still undergoing further investigation. He therefore submitted that considering the nature of offence which is a economic offence affecting the public interest and the national interest, the present application may not be entertained. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas referred to the Statement of Objects and reasons of the PML Act and submitted that it has been enacted with the object with regard to the prevention of money laundering of proceeds of drug crimes and other connected activities which are required to be curbed and these provisions have been made which are self-contained code. 13. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas emphasized the far-reaching effects of such wide spread economic offence which have a bearing on the economy of the nation, and therefore, he submitted that when the special statute like the PML Act 2002 have been enacted which is a self-contained enacted code, the provisions have to be considered. 13. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas emphasized the far-reaching effects of such wide spread economic offence which have a bearing on the economy of the nation, and therefore, he submitted that when the special statute like the PML Act 2002 have been enacted which is a self-contained enacted code, the provisions have to be considered. He pointedly referred to Section 24 of the PML Act and submitted that it provides for burden of proof and submitted that in the proceedings relating to the proceeds of crime under this Act, when the person is charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act, the court is required to presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in the money laundering. He emphasized the provisions of Section 24(a) of the PML Act which reads: “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;” Similarly, he referred to Section 23 which provides; “Presumption in inter-connected transactions.” Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that Section 46 provides for; “Application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before Special court.” but it has to be read with Section 71. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that Section 71 of the PML Act clearly provides; “Act to have overriding effect.” He therefore submitted that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be complimentary or supplementary but cannot be in consistent with the provisions of the special statute like the PML Act. He therefore strenuously submitted that having regard to the provisions of the PML Act and in particular Sections 23 and 24, a presumption has to be made that such money is the proceeds of crime, and therefore, unless the burden is discharged, prima facie case is established, and therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the economic offence, the present application may not be entertained. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that Sections 22 and 23 read with Section 24 of the PML Act refers to the presumption or the inference to be drawn, and if the burden is not discharged, prima facie the person is liable and prima facie case is established. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that Sections 22 and 23 read with Section 24 of the PML Act refers to the presumption or the inference to be drawn, and if the burden is not discharged, prima facie the person is liable and prima facie case is established. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas submitted that the applicant has failed in discharging the burden, and therefore, if the burden is not discharged the presumption may be raised and, once it is permissible to infer presumption that such proceeds are the proceeds of crime, the provisions of Section 65 read with Section 71 of the PML Act would be applicable. He therefore submitted that in view of the specific provisions of Section 71 of the PML Act, it will have an overriding effect. Even the rigors of Section 45 are taken away by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the other provisions of Sections 23 and 24 would be applicable and, once the presumption is made or is permissible that the provisions of the PML Act are applicable and the amount involved is the proceeds of crime, the present application may not be entertained. He again submitted that the FIR filed by the CBI is a different thing and the present Respondent has nothing to do with that and the case of the present applicant is required to be considered as per the special statute of the PML Act which is a self-contained enacted code, and therefore, the present application may not be entertained. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas again emphasized referring to the papers that the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act are on the same line as the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act which clearly establish prima facie the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the present application may not be entertained. He further submitted that though it is stated that the investigation is not yet over as certain facts with different details and the statements of the account and the operation of different accounts in different names require a closer verification with reference to individuals and, if the applicant is released on bail, he may influence the witnesses, and therefore, the present application may not be entertained. 14. 14. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju again referred to the background of the facts and submitted that when the Hon'ble Apex Court has remitted the matter back would mean that the matter has gone to the Hon'ble Apex Court from the order of the High Court and therefore merely because the word “High Court” is not used, would not justify such an argument. He submitted that “remitted back” would mean, consideration afresh by the court and the matter is remitted back to the High Court. He submitted that though the submissions are made that the investigation is not over, in fact the material has been seized and all the details and relevant materials are with the Respondents or with the CBI which can be considered, and therefore, there is no scope of manipulation or tampering with the record. He therefore submitted that the court is required to consider the present application as per Section 439 of Cr.PC in light of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He emphasized that since the severity of the offence and the punishment are considered as one of the relevant criteria for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC, the present application deserves to be allowed. He again referred to the details and submitted that the presumption cannot be made about the proceeds of crime without sufficient material and, it is a matter of appreciation of evidence at the trial. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju referred to the role attributed to the applicant and submitted that he is said to have filled in the number of forms in light of the demonetization. He submitted that filling of more forms to assist the people by itself is not an offence, and once the matter is remitted back with clarification that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PML Act would not be applicable, the present application deserves to be allowed. He also submitted that the case of Pradeep Sharma was different i.e. he has not approached initially the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, his case stands on a different footing. He also submitted that if some person have approached the trial court after the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would not justify that the present application may not be entertained by this court when the matter is remitted back to this court by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 15. He also submitted that if some person have approached the trial court after the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would not justify that the present application may not be entertained by this court when the matter is remitted back to this court by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 15. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application deserve consideration. 16. As recorded herein above, the earlier application was considered and the bail was declined in view of the statutory provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act and as referred to and discussed with reference to the provisions of Section 45, the court had declined as there were limitations on grant of bail specified in Section 45 of the PML Act. Therefore, even at that time reference was made to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Gorav Kathuria v. Union of India CRWP No.595 of 2016. The Application for bail was not entertained in view of the provisions of Section 45(2) of the PML Act and also considered that the present PML Act is a special statute or self-contained code and therefore it would have overriding effect over the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.PC which has also been highlighted and pressed into service by the learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas. 17. However, after the rigors of Section 45 of the PML Act and the twin conditions which require the High Court to satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of any such offence, has been removed. The court is not therefore required to satisfy at this stage for grant of bail with regard to the issues involved with regard to the violation of the PML Act particularly the proceeds of crime. Apart from that, even assuming that there is a prima facie case suggesting the involvement of the Applicant accused with reference to all the details with regard to the different accounts and different bank accounts which have been handled and managed by the petitioner suggesting the prima facie involvement and prima facie case under the PML Act, even then, the present application is required to be considered on its own merits under Section 439 of Cr.PC. 18. 18. Much reliance placed by learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas on the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the PML Act and the emphasis about the burden of proof, presumption is required to be scrutinized closely. As stated that when a person is charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, the authority or the court shall presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. In other words unless the burden is discharged, the person who is charged with the offence of money laundering, the presumption is required to be made that it is a proceed of crime involved in money laundering. Therefore, it refers to the presumption or inference to be drawn and the burden is on the accused, which is required to be discharged. However, it may have to be considered on the basis of material and evidence at the trial and the Court is obliged to make such presumption if the burden is discharged. In other words, the aspect of presumption and the burden of proof to be discharged by the applicant-accused may come at that stage. Therefore, the provision of Sections 23 and 24 pressed by learned Assistant Solicitor General, Shri Devang Vyas may have to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present application with reference to the provision of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and the concept of bail or jail having a reference to the aspect of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such matters of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, from time to time, laid down the criteria or the relevant factors which are required to be considered including the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed on the aspect of bail and liberty. 20. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed on the aspect of bail and liberty. 20. Similarly in a subsequent judgment in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has made the observations referring to the aspect of bail and has quoted from the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 281 . It has been quoted: “The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by this Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1362 ), thus (Paras 13 to 16 of AIR) : “6. “Bail” remains an undefined term in Cr.P.C. Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be understood as a right for assertion of freedom against the State imposing restraints. Since the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory, the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression “bail” denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb “bailer” which means to “give” or “to deliver”, although another view is that its derivation is from the Latin term “baiulare”, meaning “to bear a burden”. Bail is a conditional liberty. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn., 1971) spells out certain other details. It states: “? when a man is taken or arrested for felony, suspicion of felony, indicted of felony, or any such case, so that he is restrained of his liberty. And, being by law bailable, offereth surety to those which have authority to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the King’s use in a certain sums of money, or body for body, that he shall appear before the justices of goal delivery at the next sessions, etc. And, being by law bailable, offereth surety to those which have authority to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the King’s use in a certain sums of money, or body for body, that he shall appear before the justices of goal delivery at the next sessions, etc. Then upon the bonds of these sureties, as is aforesaid, he is bailed – that is to say, set at liberty until the day appointed for his appearance.” Bail may thus be regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the prisoners, and at the same time involves participation of the community in administration of justice. 7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. The presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras ( AIR 1950 SC 27 )). 8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt." 21. Thus, the concept of bail has been evolved as a mechanism where the personal liberty of an individual is considered vis-a-vis the investigating agency or the public interest. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt." 21. Thus, the concept of bail has been evolved as a mechanism where the personal liberty of an individual is considered vis-a-vis the investigating agency or the public interest. In other words the balance has to be struck between the right of an individual person for the liberty which is also an important segment of the fundamental rights and, on the other hand, the interest of the investigating agency or the State to secure the presence and to protect the society. Thus, it reflects two conflicting claims. On one hand the requirement of the society which is required to be protected from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime and on the other hand the individual liberty of a person like the applicant accused. The concept of the individual liberty or the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz., namely the presumption of innocence of accused till he is found guilty. Further, as it has been evolved by judicial pronouncements over a period of time by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the law of bail as a branch has its own philosophy and an important step in the administration of justice where the concept of bail has to be considered by balancing the conflicting rights of an individual and the investigating agency. 22. A useful reference can be also be made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered relevant criteria, which are required to be considered for the purpose of bail. 23. Therefore, as per the settled principles and guidelines at the stage of grant of bail, the discretion is required to be exercised by the courts balancing the right of an individual and the investigating agency or the society, at that stage a detailed examination of material and evidence or the elaborate discussion is not necessary and the court is not required to have any perception that prima facie case is established which would be sufficient to deny the bail. In fact the prima facie case may be considered but the relevant criteria for grant of bail has other facets like prima facie case, the nature of accusation and severity of punishment and also the reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses. Therefore, at that stage, the prima facie satisfaction about the involvement of the Applicant accused may not be a lone criteria as the trial may take some time and therefore having regard to the nature of offence or severity of offence and the reasonable apprehension about tampering with the witnesses of material discretion, is required to be exercised. 24. In the facts of the case therefore, even if it is prima facie assumed about the involvement of the Applicant accused with regard to the alleged offence under the PML Act and there may be further scrutiny of the material by the Respondent agency, the fact remains that most of the material has been seized and collected and the severity of the punishment, which has been emphasized by learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Raju, clearly suggest that it is punishable up to 7 years, meaning thereby, it is not punishable with life imprisonment or death. Therefore, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said statute like the PMLA Act, 2002 which has been enacted to curb certain economic offences, which are enacted to take care of threat to the financial system, which may have a bearing on the public interest or the national interest, the fact remains that when the rigors of Section 45 of the PML Act provides for a twin condition as stated above have been taken away, the consideration of the present application for bail even in light of the submissions and the prima facie case suggesting the involvement of the Applicant accused for the alleged offence would not dis-entitle the Applicant accused from bail having regard to the broad guidelines regarding grant of bail. However, in order to protect the interest of the Respondent or the public interest, suitable stringent conditions can be imposed particularly when learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Devang Vyas has voiced an apprehension that even though the Applicant accused is in jail, there is no cooperation by his family members for the investigation and further details. Therefore the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. 25. Therefore the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. 25. The Applicant – JIGNESH KISHOREBHAI BHAJIAWALA is ordered to be released on bail in connection with ECIR/01/STSZO/2016 registered with Directorate of Enforcement, Surat converted into PMLA Case No.5 of 2017 pending before the Hon’ble Designated Special Court under PMLA, 2002 on his executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that : (a) he shall not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty. (b) he shall not to try to tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner. (c) he shall not act in any manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution. (d) he shall maintain law and order and should cooperate the investigating officers. (e) he shall mark his presence every month before the concerned Police Station from 1st to 10th of each calendar month between 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM. (f) the applicant and his family members will respond to the summons and shall cooperate with the Respondent Agency – Directorate of Enforcement for the purpose of any inquiry, investigation or any material that may be required. (g) it will be open for the Respondent Agency to move an application for cancellation of bail in case of failure to cooperate with the Respondent Agency (h) he shall furnish the address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission of the Court. (i) he shall surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court at the time of release of bond. 26. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 27. Bail before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open to the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.