ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. S.G. for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. (PMLA) 04 of 2018, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/05/2017, registered for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to sole reason that Sandeep Yadav is his father-in-law otherwise petitioner has no concern at all in any manner whatsoever with co-accused Sandeep Yadav and the deposits in the bank accounts of the petitioner, utilized for payment of the said flat are from gifts of marriage, the savings of the mother of the petitioner, his wife, gift from family members as well as loans from friends. 4. Learned Addl. S.G., appearing for the Union of India opposed the prayer of bail and submits that vide letter No. 213/C dated 30.06.2017, the S.P. Economic Office-3 Bihar, Patna has forwarded list of 88 F.I.R.s’ registered and three charge sheets against co-accused Sandeep Yadav @ Vijay Yadav @ Rupeshjee @ Badka Bhaiya, who is father-in-law of the petitioner-accused Gajendra Narain, as well as list of eight F.I.R.s against another co-accused Dhanik Lal Mandal @ Bhutali. It is alleged that co-accused Sandeep Yadav is an active member of banned outfit CPI (Maoist) a Left Wing Extremist Organization against whom there is allegation that as area commander of Madhya Zone of Bihar and Jharkhand he and his associates have been alleged of threatening and killing of innocent people/security forces and collection of levy and it is revealed that Sandeep Yadav and Dhanik Lal Mandal @ Bhutali both have acquired huge properties in the name of their family members, from their criminal activities which is detailed in para 7.1 of complaint petition including advance payment for Flat No. 1175 in Smart Residency having value of Rs. 10,68,400/- acquired in name of petitioner-accused who has made payment of Rs. 10,68,400/- to RMCL Dwarka New Delhi for purchase of flat. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this application is rejected.