ORDER : G. Sri Devi, J. 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner seeking to grant anticipatory trail in the event of his arrest in connection with F. No. ECIR/HYZO/09/2018/4377, dated 08.12.2020 on the file of the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, which was registered under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003). 2. The case of the prosecution is that Agri Gold Company led by Avva Venkata Rama Rao and other Directors, have hatched a plan to run an illegal unregulated collective investment scheme by collecting deposits from public, without the approval of RBI/SEBI or any government agency, under the name board of "Real Estate Business", to the tune of Rs. 6380.00 Crores from 19,18,865 depositors under 32,02,628 claims/accounts as on 30.11.2014, with a promise to return the amounts with high rate of interest or registering a piece of land after developing it as plots for the money invested on the deposits and accordingly issued receipts for the group deposits as if it was an advance to a piece of land. The depositors deposited their hard earned money in Agri Gold Group of Companies believing the promises of the company. Avva Venkata Rama Rao criminally conspired with other accused Directors in the companies and established 156 subsidiary companies under Agri Gold Group for the purpose of tax evasion and protection from Land Ceiling Act and to divert the funds collected by the Primary Companies etc. from the depositors. The modus operandi of the scheme of the Agri Gold Group Companies was that they would lure the gullible public to join as depositors in their schemes and encourage them to pay the desired deposits either directly or through the agents for allotting a developed plot in the nearby locality or to pay back their money with high rate of interest. The said companies did not mention either the actual market value of the land or its location or its boundaries or survey numbers or the permissions required to be obtained for the layout from the concerned authorities. All the depositors, who paid money to Agri Gold Group of Companies, are in the form of deposits only. The Agri Gold Group of Companies did not obtain permission from RBI to collect such deposits. All the depositors, who paid money to Agri Gold Group of Companies, are in the form of deposits only. The Agri Gold Group of Companies did not obtain permission from RBI to collect such deposits. SEBI has also stated that Agri Gold Group of Companies carried out the business in the form of Collective Investments Schemes (CIS). The Group has collected monies from depositors by promising them to pay double the amounts or allotment of a plot to the depositor, but the Agri Gold Group Companies represented by their Directors, diverted the funds to various industries like Power/energy, Diary, Entertain, Health. (Ayurvedic), Farm Land Ventures etc., without knowledge of the depositors and defaulted to return the deposits either in cash or in kind as agreed upon. SEBI in its report on 14.09.2015 declared that the business of M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited was nothing but a Collective Investment Scheme and ordered the company to stop taking further deposits and return the money to the depositors, but instead of complying with the directions of the SEBI in letter and spirit, the said Avva Venkata Rama Rao, opened new companies and started collecting deposits in the names of new companies on the pretext of real estate business. The said Avva Venkata Rama Rao had earlier worked as a Marketing Executive in M/s. Golden Forest CIS Scam and he was well aware that such schemes are illegal and unsustainable. Despite having full knowledge of criminal proceedings and SEBI investigation against Golden Forest Scam from the very beginning, he planned and executed a conspiracy with the support of his family to dupe lakhs of gullible investors. The management of Agri Gold Group induced the gullible public to deposit money in their companies and failed to return the same. Despite the fact that ever by their own unverified claims, the Agri Gold group had lands sufficient for 5.5 lakh plots rut the Group had taken deposits from 32 lakhs investor accounts. The management of Agri Gold Group induced the gullible public to deposit money in their companies and failed to return the same. Despite the fact that ever by their own unverified claims, the Agri Gold group had lands sufficient for 5.5 lakh plots rut the Group had taken deposits from 32 lakhs investor accounts. Considering the huge discrepancy in the amount of land available, the group should have used all their resources in identifying, buying and developing more land parcels Instead, the petitioner and his family went on a siphoning spree and illegally diverted the public deposits and invested in myriad verticals and in private companies which were directly owned by their family and that they have diverted the funds to their group companies/invested huge money in unrelated businesses/sectors, payments of commissions to the individual directors relatives and huge payments by way of commissions to the agents and their and thus, they have dishonestly misappropriated the money deposited with them to the tune of Rs. 6300.00 Crores. Accused could not be able to explain the utilization of the entire amount collected from the investors and they are evasive and are not able to explain the reason for diversification of public funds into private subsidiary companies in unrelated sectors for personal gain. Hence, it is established the accused are directly involved in laundering the ill-gotten wealth which is acquired by duping the lakhs of gullible public in the guise of real estate business. 3. Heard Sri M.P. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. A. Krishnaveni; Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, assisted by Sri K. Ajay Kumar and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case is registered against Agri Gold Group of Companies and others in F. No. ECIR/HYZO/09/2018/4377, in which the petitioner was issued summons by the 1st respondent. A. Krishnaveni; Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, assisted by Sri K. Ajay Kumar and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case is registered against Agri Gold Group of Companies and others in F. No. ECIR/HYZO/09/2018/4377, in which the petitioner was issued summons by the 1st respondent. He further submits that there are cases registered against the management of M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited, in different police stations of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and in all the cases, the names of Chairman, Directors and the names of relatives were also included by the police without making investigation and they were arrested in all such cases and later released on bail; that the Government has assigned the cases to C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and almost the investigation is completed in all the cases and police have filed charge sheets in most of cases and in many of the cases, the condition imposed by the respective Courts against the Directors to appear before the Investigating Authorities was relaxed. He also submits that the Chairman of Agri Gold Company was in jail for two years and now he is on regular bail and that after arrest of the Chairman and Directors of accused company, the C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, seized the records and examined number of witnesses and as such there is no question of tampering with the investigation and that already investigation was completed and the prime accused in the cases filed in different police stations with similar offences were granted bail long back He further submits that the Investigating agency, on public domain had clearly specified that the investigation in Agri Gold matters was completed and only some scientific material is awaited. He also submits that while the matter stood thus, a case was registered against M/s. Agrigold Group of Companies by the Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and as a part of investigation, the authorities have issued summons to the petitioner, firstly in the month of February, 2020 and ever since the notices have been received by the petitioner, he has been cooperating with the Enforcement Directorate Authorities and attending before them along with required information and lastly the notice dated 08.12.2020 was issued to appear before the 1st respondent on 21.12.2020 at his office and a letter has been submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent, to grant time to present before him, but the same was not considered and as such there is an apprehension and threat of arrest to the petitioner in connection with the said case. He further submits that the petitioner has been regularly attending the office of the 1st respondent as and when called for and the investigation by the C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was completed and at this point of time, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement Authorities. 5. It is also submitted that a PIL was filed before this Court, wherein the Chairman of Agrigold Group of Companies sought a relief of resolution in the case, where it was proposed that few lands to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- Crores mobilization has been taken up and the presence of the petitioner is essential to assist in the matter. It is further submitted that it is alleged by the Directorate of Enforcement, in the arrest intimation report of the others connected with the present case, that the information and documents were not submitted to their office in spite of repeated opportunities is utterly false and that the petitioner is cooperating with the Directorate of Enforcement since issuance of its first summon and had submitted all the information required by the authorities and even now the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the 1st respondent and submit any information as sought by the 1st respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has not involved in any crime and that he will be harassed and humiliated by the Directorate of Enforcement if he is arrested by them. He further submits that the petitioner has not involved in any crime and that he will be harassed and humiliated by the Directorate of Enforcement if he is arrested by them. He also submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and permanent resident of Hyderabad and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed in the event of his enlargement on anticipatory bail. He further submits that there is also no allegation against the petitioner that he ever influenced any of the prosecution witnesses or tampered with any of the evidence and therefore, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court as well as the High Courts of various States: 1. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 2. Nikesh Taruchand Shah v. Union of India and another (2018) 11 SCC 1 3. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (3) ALT (Crl.) 44 (SC) : 2012 Law Suit (SC) 244. 4. Tech Mahindra Limited v. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2014 Law Suit (Hyd) 1292 5. Most. Ahilya devi @ Ahilya Devi v. State of Bihar Crl.Misc. No. 41413 of 2019 of Patna (HC). 6. Anil Tuteja and others v. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement and others Manu/CD/0463/2020. 6. Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, would submit that the 1st respondent has found out the role of the petitioner in Money Laundering as he was actively participated in siphoning off the public funds for personal gains along with his brothers. He further submits that in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (3) ALT (Crl.) 529 (SC) : (2019) 9 SCC 24 the Apex Court rejected the anticipatory bail application by applying the provisions under Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He also submits that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail as gravity of economic offences affects the entire society. He further submits that there is a catena of judgments which show that the offence of money laundering is a stand-alone offence and the investigation in some of the FIRs in the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka may be complete, but the money laundering investigation of Enforcement Directorate is still pending. He further submits that there is a catena of judgments which show that the offence of money laundering is a stand-alone offence and the investigation in some of the FIRs in the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka may be complete, but the money laundering investigation of Enforcement Directorate is still pending. He further submits that there is no provision of pre-arrest bail as far as Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 is concerned and hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further submits that there are strong allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime and that the petitioner is already facing various charge sheets by LEAs. He further submits that an amount of Rs. 6300.00 Crores was collected from 39 lakhs depositors. He further submits that the investigation is at very crucial stage and the documents and other material which were seized in the residence of the petitioner are yet to be verified and the same require further investigation to establish the role of the present petitioner and, therefore, sustained questioning and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted to unearth the proceeds of the crime. He further submits that taking note of huge magnitude of conspiracy angle and involvement of the petitioner and pending interrogation of the petitioner, granting any sort of relief including; anticipatory bail to the petitioner would disable the respondent from further tracing the proceeds of crime and attaching it provisionally under Section 5 (1) of PMLA, 2002, which is one of the objectives of the Act. He also submits that the economic offences stand as a class apart and custodial interrogation is required for the Enforcement Directorate to trace the trail of money. He further submits that grant of anticipatory bail at this crucial stage of investigation would definitely hamper the effective investigation and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused all the relevant materials relied on by both sides. 8. A three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others while dealing with the purpose, object and function of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, observed in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 as under: "19. 8. A three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others while dealing with the purpose, object and function of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, observed in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 as under: "19. The object of Section 438 Cr.P C. has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. But at the same time the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot also be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the Court after the investigation is complete and if charge-sheet is filed against him. Such an interpretation would amount to violence to the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C, since even though a charge-sheet may be filed against an accused and charge is framed against him, he may still not appear before the court at all even during the trial. 20. Section 438 Cr.P.C. contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge-sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting anticipatory bail, an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial Court." 9. Regarding the provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Apex Court in Nikesh Tarachanil Shah case (2018) 11 SCC 1 (supra) held as under: "34. Again, it is quite possible that the person prosecuted for the scheduled offence is different from the person prosecuted for the offence under the 2002 Act. Mr. X may be a person who is liable to be prosecuted for an offence, which is contained in Part A of the Schedule. In perpetrating this offence under Part A of the Schedule, Mr. X may have been paid a certain amount of money. This money is; ultimately traced to Mr. Y, who is charged with the same offence under Part A of the Schedule and is also charged with possession of the proceeds of crime, which he now projects as being untainted. Mr. X may have been paid a certain amount of money. This money is; ultimately traced to Mr. Y, who is charged with the same offence under Part A of the Schedule and is also charged with possession of the proceeds of crime, which he now projects as being untainted. Mr. X applies for bail to the Special Court/High Court. Despite the fact that Mr. X is not involved in the money laundering offence, but only in the scheduled offence, by virtue of the fact that the two sets of offences are being tried together, Mr. X would be denied bail because the money laundering offence is being tried along with the scheduled offence, for which Mr. Y alone is being prosecuted. This illustration would show that a person who may have nothing to do with the offence of money laundering may yet be denied bail, because of the twin conditions that have to be satisfied under Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act. Also, Mr. A may well be prosecuted for an offence which falls within Part A of the Schedule, but which does not involve money laundering. Such offences would be liable to be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and despite the fact that it may be the very same Part A scheduled offence given in the illustration above, the fact that no prosecution for money laundering along with the said offence is launched, would enable Mr. A to get bail without the rigorous conditions contained in Section 45 of the 2002 Act. All these examples show that manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust results would arise on the application or non-application of Section 45 and would directly violate Articles 14 and 21, inasmuch as the procedure for bail would become harsh, burdensome, wrongful and discriminatory depending upon whether a person is being tried for an offence which also happens to be an offence under Part A of the Schedule, or an offence under Part A of the Schedule together with an offence under the 2002 Act Obviously, the grant of bail would depend upon a circumstance which has nothing to do with the offence of money laundering. On this ground alone, Section 45 would have to be struck down as being manifestly arbitrary and providing a procedure which is not fair or just and would, thus, violate both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution." 10. On this ground alone, Section 45 would have to be struck down as being manifestly arbitrary and providing a procedure which is not fair or just and would, thus, violate both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution." 10. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case (2018) 11 SCC 1 (supra), the provisions of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering act do not apply to Section 438 Cr.P.C. proceedings. 11. In Sushila Aggarwal case (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "Therefore, this Court holds that the view expressed in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaiklu K.L. Verma, Nirmal Jeet Jair, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J J. Manan and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra) about the Court of Session, or the High Court, being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await the course of investigation, so as the "normal court" not being "bye passed" or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be granted normally-including in economic offences, etc. are not good law. The observations which indicate that such time related or investigative event related conditions, should invariably be imposed at the time of grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that "the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it" is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438(2") read with Section 437(3") should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible "formula" which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice-to impose special conditions. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice-to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions, such as those stated in Section 437(21 while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161. Cr.P.C. etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant." 12. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case (2018) 11 SCC 1 (supra) and Sushila Aggarwal case (supra), Chhattisgarh High Court in Anil Tuteja and others v. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement and others Manu/CD/0463/2020 (supra) held as under: "It is clear that there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session for entertaining an application preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. directly before the High Court is maintainable. Asjield by the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah Case (supra), it is also clear that the provisions of Section 45 of PMLA do not apply to Section 438 Cr.P.C. proceedings. From the speech of the then Finance Minister, it is also clear that the provisions of Section 24 of PMLA only apply after framing of a charge against the accused. As held by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal case (supra), it is also clear that there is no bar for grant of anticipatory bail in a case relating to economic offence." 13. As held by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal case (supra), it is also clear that there is no bar for grant of anticipatory bail in a case relating to economic offence." 13. In the instant case, major part of the investigation has been completed and the Chairman and other Directors of the Company were granted bails and in most of the cases, the conditions imposed against the Directors while granting bail were relaxed. Though the respondent authorities have registered the case in the year 2018, a notice was issued for the first time in the year 2020 and that the petitioner has been cooperating with the authorities and attending before them along with required information as and when called for. The delay in issuing the notice after two years has not been properly explained by the respondent authorities. Moreover, the main accused in this case have already been arrested and their custodial interrogation has already been done by the respondent authorities and they have stated that various movable and immovable properties worth Rs. 4109.13 Crores of Agri Gold Group, its Promoters/Directors and other connected persons have already been attached vide Provisional Attachment Order "No. 4/2020, dated 24.12.2020. Further, the respondent authorities have not properly explained why the custodial interrogation of this petitioner is required. Moreover, the application for anticipatory bail in case of P. Chidambaram 2019 (3) ALT (Crl.) 529 (SC) : (2019) 9 SCC 24 (supra), which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities, was rejected on merits of the allegations and other materials and hence, the facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. 14. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has been regularly attending before the respondent authorities as and when called for and cooperating with the investigation by furnishing required information; the main accused have already been arrested and their custodial interrogation has already been done by the respondent authorities; major part of the investigation has already been completed and the properties worth Rs. 4109.13 Crores have already been attached, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required. In such circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions is justifiable. 15. 4109.13 Crores have already been attached, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required. In such circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions is justifiable. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, within a period of fifteen days from today, and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on -his executing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties each to the like amount to his satisfaction. (ii) The petitioner shall personally appear before the respondent authorities on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 12.00 Noon and 5.00 p.m., till completion of the investigation. (iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, before the concerned Court at the time of execution of bonds and he shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court. If the petitioner has no passport or he has already submitted the same in any case, he shall file an affidavit to that effect. (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (v) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious investigation. (vi) The petitioner shall also comply with the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.