JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant Mrs. Saifali Walia @ Shaifali Karanwal is in judicial custody, in Prosecution Complaint Case No. 79 of 2023, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India Vs. M/s Pushpanjali Realms and Infratech Ltd. (“the company”) and others in the court District and Sessions Judge, under Sections 44 and 45 for committing offence under Section 3 read with Section 70 punishable under Section 4 of the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“the Act”), Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. FIR No. 93 of 2020 under Section 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, FIR No. 112 of 2020, under Section 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, FIR No. 88 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun and FIR No. 5 of 2022, under Section 420, 406, 120B IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun were investigated by the police. The applicant was not named as an accused in those FIRs. Post investigation, it was revealed that the company were constructing flats in the name of project Orchid Park in Dehradun. It was a huge project to be spread over in 24 bigha land of Rajpal Walia, the husband of the applicant and Rakhi Mittal. Money was collected from the flat buyers and loan was taken, but neither the flats were provided to the buyers nor money was returned. It was also revealed that, in fact, the money received from the flat buyers was deposited in personal bank accounts from the bank accounts of the company. 4. It is the case against the applicant that her husband Rajpal Walia deposited Rs.1.84 Crore which was the Proceeds of Crime (“POC”) in her account. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was not named in any of the FIRs, based on which, instant complaint was filed. He would raise the following points in his submissions:- (i) According to the complainant, total Rs.9.22 Crores were transferred to the bank accounts of three Directors, including Rajpal Walia, the husband of the applicant, but the complaint is silent as to what amount out from Rs.9.42 Crore was deposited in the account of the co-accused Rajpal Walia and what was the precise amount that was transferred to the account of the applicant. (ii) Learned counsel referred to the portion of the complaint i.e. para 10.5.3 to argue that according to it, Rs.99.50 Lakh were transferred from the Company’s account to the account of Rajpal Walia. Learned counsel would submit that even if, for the sake of arguments, it is taken as true, it is an amount less than Rs. 1 Crore, which takes this case out from the rigors of Section 45 of the Act. (iii) Referring to paras 10.6 and 11.5 of the complaint, learned counsel would submit that on the one hand, as per para 10.5.3 total Rs.99.50 Lakhs were transferred from the Company’s account to the account of the co-accused Rajpal Walia, whereas on the other hand, in para 10.6 of the complaint, it is recorded that total Rs.1.84 Crore were transferred by Rajpal Walia to the account of the applicant. It is argued that in para 11.5.1 in the complaint, it is recorded that total 9.79 Crore were transferred in the account of Rajpal Walia, which it is argued makes it clear that even prosecution is not clear about its case because as per contention of para 10.2 of the complaint, total 9.22 Crore were transferred to 3 Directors of the company including Rajpal Walia. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that it is case of not only concealing but layering and round trapping of POC by the applicant and the co-accused. It is argued that co-accused Rajpal Walia deposited Rs.1.84 Crores in the account of the applicant. 7. During the course of hearing, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement would submit that the co-accused Deepak Mittal transferred Rs.1.79 Crore, which was POC in the account of the co-accused Rajpal Walia and co-accused Rakhi Mittal transferred Rs.80 Lakh in the account of the co-accused Rajpal Walia, which was POC. It is also argued that co-accused Rajpal Walia did receive certain money from the Company, which was POC and certain money he received from the co-accused Deepak Mittal and Rakhi Mittal and from other layering and by round trapping also he received huge money, which is POC. It is argued that the role of third person is still to be investigated. Mr. It is argued that the role of third person is still to be investigated. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement has, in fact, referred to certain entries in the account of co-accused Rajpal Walia as to how the money was transferred in his account from the account of the co-accused Deepak Mittal. 8. In reply to it, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that entire money which the co-accused Rajpal Walia has received is not POC and the money which the applicant has received is also not POC. He would refer to the bank statement of co-accused Rajpal Walia to argue that on 09.08.2016 about Rs.7 Lakh was the balance in the account of co-accused Rajpal Walia and all the transactions that were made in the account of the applicant were post 09.08.2016, which cannot be termed as POC. 9. The statements which have been shown on behalf of the complainant reveals that, in fact, post 09.08.2016, co-accused Rajpal Walia did receive about Rs.17 Lakh from the co-accused Deepak Mittal and Rs.8.5 Lakh were received from the Company on 28.04.2017, which means even if the statement given on behalf of the applicant is taken to be true, still co-accused Rajpal Walia had Rs.32 Lakh which he had received from the company, which prosecution claims to be POC. 10. Although, according to the prosecution, by layering and round trapping of the money total Rs.1.84 Crore was deposited in the account of the applicant. On behalf of the prosecution, it is argued that it is not Rs.1 Crore amount, which individually is to be seen while reading Section 45 of the Act, but the total POC is to be seen. It is argued that in the instant case, POC is much more than Rs.1 Crore. 11. Section 45 of the Act reads as follows:- “45. It is argued that in the instant case, POC is much more than Rs.1 Crore. 11. Section 45 of the Act reads as follows:- “45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own along with other co-accused of money - laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by— (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the expression “Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable” shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to be contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.” 12. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a woman. On behalf of the applicant, it is also argued that the money which has been shown to be transferred from the account of co-accused Deepak Mittal to the account of co-accused Rajpal Walia is not POC account. 13. Replying to it, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement would submit that Rs.1.50 Crore which the co-accused Deepak Mittal transferred in the account of co-accused Rajpal Walia on 01.07.2016 is a POC account. He would submit that other accounts are to be verified. He would submit that the co-accused Deepak Mittal is still fleeing from justice and he is not co-operating with the investigation. Many more facts are yet to be unearthed. 14. It is a case of possession, concealing and layering of the POC. The prosecution has shown the transaction of POC in the account of the applicant. Co-accused Rajpal Walia is her husband, who as per prosecution received POC not from company alone, but from other co-accused also. It is stated that co-accused are still absconding and not co-operating with the investigation. 15. This is serious offence, which intends to destroy the faith and the trust of people in the financial transactions. It affects society at large immensely. Having considered the nature of offence, its ramification and consequence in society; the fact that huge POC was allegedly received by the applicant and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 16. It affects society at large immensely. Having considered the nature of offence, its ramification and consequence in society; the fact that huge POC was allegedly received by the applicant and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 16. The bail applicant is rejected.