ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application No.361 of 2020. 3. The appellant, Original Accused No. vi in P.M.L.A. Special Case No.6 of 2019 on the file of City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PML Act). The scheduled or predicate offence in the instant case pertain to (a) offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in terms of F.I.R. No.253 of 2018 dated 06.12.2018 registered with Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi; and (b) offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Section 120B and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to Criminal Complaint No.20 of 2019 dated 30.05.2019 filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation office, Mumbai. 4. It appears that on the ground that the sanction issued in the said predicate offences suffered from non-application of mind, the order issuing sanction was quashed by the High Court. The said order is presently under challenge in SLP (Crl.) No.2559 of 2019. 5. Even while quashing the order, the High Court had stayed the operation of its order, which order of interim stay is presently continuing as a result of directions issued by this Court. It was, however, made clear that the order of interim relief so granted by this Court would not in any way affect the orders granting bail to the accused. 6. We are presently concerned with the proceedings arising out of the complaint filed under the provisions of PML Act. In the instant case, the appellant was taken in custody on 19.06.2019 and has remained in custody since then. Thus, the appellant has completed more than three years of actual custody in connection with the offence in respect of PML Act. 7. It has been brought to our notice that Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have not yet been arrested and though the cognizance in the matter has been taken, charges are yet to be framed. 8. Considering the entirety of the matter and the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of bail. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have not yet been arrested and though the cognizance in the matter has been taken, charges are yet to be framed. 8. Considering the entirety of the matter and the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of bail. We therefore, allow this appeal and while setting aside the order passed by the High Court direct as under: (a) The appellant shall be produced before the concerned trial Court within three days from today. (b) The trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the trial Court may deem appropriate to impose. (c) The appellant shall deposit his passport, if not deposited earlier, with the trial Court. (d) The appellant shall mark his presence in the office of the Enforcement Directorate every second and fourth Monday between 11.00 AM and 01.00 PM in a register earmarked for the purposes. (e) The appellant shall not misuse his liberty nor shall he attempt to influence any of the witnesses. (f) The appellant shall cooperate with the proceedings before the trial Court and shall appear in-person unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court. (g) Any infraction of these conditions shall entail in cancellation of the relief for bail 9. With these observations, the appeal is allowed and pending applications stand disposed of.