JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri S. P. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2018, ECIR No. 07/VSI/2012, Filing No. 1602 of 2023, UPLKO010018442023, S.T. No. 278/2023, under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 29.05.2010, the Regional Manager, Ballia Gramin Bank, Ballia had sent a complaint against one Chandra Prakash Singh, Branch Manager, Ballia, Gramin Bank and some unknown persons, stating that when Chandra Prakash Singh was posted as Branch Manager during the period December 2008 to December 2009, he had embezzled public money for his personal gain and had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1.60 Crores (approximately) and had thereby caused financial loss to the bank. In furtherance of the aforesaid complaint, a First Information Report bearing number RC 0062010A0017 under Sections 120B, 409, 420 I.P.C. read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed on 11.06.2010 against Chandra Prakash Singh and other unknown persons. The matter was investigated by CBI/ACB and on 30.06.2011, a charge-sheet was forwarded alleging commission of offences under Sections 120 B, 409, 477-A of the Indian Panel Code read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offence under Sections 409 and 477A IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against several persons, including the applicant, alleging that Chandra Prakash Singh had caused wrongful loss of Rs. 56,47,592/-to the bank in criminal conspiracy with the applicant and certain other persons. The charge-sheet was submitted on 04.07.2011 4. Subsequently on 06.01.2012 the E.D. registered ECIR No.0/VSI.2012, investigated the matter, recorded statements of several persons, including the applicant, and filed a complaint against five persons, including the applicant, on 16.09.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Allahabad, which has subsequently been transferred to Lucknow. Regarding the applicant, it is stated in the complaint that he had posted the manifold in respect of loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843, that these manifolds had been issued from Dataha and were used to close the loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843 on 04.12.2008. Regarding the applicant, it is stated in the complaint that he had posted the manifold in respect of loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843, that these manifolds had been issued from Dataha and were used to close the loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843 on 04.12.2008. No account opening forms and no KYC documents were available in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts. The complaint states that the applicant knowingly assisted co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh in his wrongdoings and allowed him to use his ID and password for fraudulent transactions of banking funds and thereby committed offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’). 5. The trial court took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused persons by means of an order dated 02.04.2018. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is a 65 years old innocent person, who has no criminal history, besides scheduled offence. The applicant was dismissed from the service in the year 2012. 7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of order sheet of the trial court, which indicates that summons of the complaint case were not served on the applicant till 09.06.2022 and it is recorded in the order dated 07.07.2022 that the summons had been served on the accused persons. Thereafter, bailable warrants were issued against the applicant but subsequently the case was transferred from Allahabad to Lucknow, where it was registered on 17.01.2023. 8. The applicant claims that upon coming to know about the proceedings, he appeared before the trial court through his counsel on 19.04.2023 and exemption of his personal appearance was sought on the ground of his medical condition, which was rejected and non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. The order issuing non bailable warrant and the summoning/ cognizance order dated 02.04.2018 were challenged by the applicant by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4585 of 2023, which was rejected by means of an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by this Court. 9. The order issuing non bailable warrant and the summoning/ cognizance order dated 02.04.2018 were challenged by the applicant by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4585 of 2023, which was rejected by means of an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation and, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR in respect of the scheduled offence was filed on 11.06.2010, in which the applicant was not named as an accused person and his name came in the charge sheet submitted on 30.06.2011; that the Enforcement Directorate has registered ECIR on 06.01.2012 and has filed the complaint on 16.09.2017; that cognizance was taken on 02.04.2018 and satisfaction regarding service of summon on the applicant was recorded for the first time on 07.07.2022; that the applicant has been dismissed from the service way back in the year 2012 and there is no reasonable apprehension of his being able to influence the witness or tamper with the evidence; that the applicant has presently attained the age of 65 years and besides the scheduled offence, he has no criminal history and he has been granted bail in the scheduled offence, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. allowed 11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Kirti Nath Tiwari before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; (ii). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; (ii). That the applicant 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 facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.