ORDER : 1. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA, 2002”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that during a search and seizure investigation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 30.06.2022 and one Mr. Suryakant Tiwari at a hotel room of Hotel Shereton Grand, Bengaluru, certain incriminating materials are said to have been found, based upon which a complaint was lodged by the Income Tax Department at the Kadugodi, Police Station Bengaluru alleging offences under Sections 186, 204 and 353 read with Section 120B of the IPC which led to the registration of the FIR. Based upon the further investigation the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. RPZO/09/2022 and further investigation was conducted. In the course of the investigation, main accused- Suryakant Tiwari was summoned and was arrested on 13.10.2022. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecution has recovered diaries from the possession of Smt. Soumya Chourasiya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari, from which it would reveal transaction of cash money between Smt. Soumya Chourasiya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari. It is also case of the prosecution that object of Suryakant Tiwari to tamper and destroy the important documents as well as electronic gadgets and Suryakant Tiwari along with his brother, Rajnikant Tiwari and his associates Hemant Jaiswal, Jogendra Singh, Moinuddin Quaraishi, Nikhil Chandrakar, Roshan Singh and others were involved in criminal conspiracy to run a parallel system of collecting illegal levy on coal and were doing illegal and unaccounted cash movement as per instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. All the above mentioned associates of Suryakant Tiwari had admitted in their statements recorded before the Income Tax officials that they were doing the illegal levy collection on the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. The proceeds received from the above referred to action were being used for taking undue advantage and to influence public servants by corrupt and illegal means and by exercise of personal influence. 4. The proceeds received from the above referred to action were being used for taking undue advantage and to influence public servants by corrupt and illegal means and by exercise of personal influence. 4. The role of the present applicant is that the present applicant has obtained a cash of Rs. 3 crore out of the proceed of crime. The applicant in his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002 has confirmed that Mr. Suryakant Tiwari is known to him for the last five years, he used to make conversation with Mr. Suryakant Tiwari over phone/whatsapp call and being In-charge of Khairagarh by-poll conducted in April, 2022, he was looking after campaigning, management of party workers related to Khairagrh by-election etc. and there was a whatsapp chat dated 09.04.2022 collected by the Enforcement Directorate which shows that the present applicant has received an amount of Rs. 35 lacs from Suryakant Tiwari. The whatsapp chat dated 05.04.2022 further shows that the present applicant has asked Suryakant Tiwari for arranging a programme of Dr. Kumar Biswas on Ram Navami and further asked Mr. Tiwari to arrange @ Rs. 25 lacs excluding tax which had to be made from genuine income only. The further case of the Enforcement Directorate is that Nikhil Chandrakar who is close associate of Suryakant Tiwari, whose statement has been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on 26.12.2022 & 27.12.2022 has stated that the entry in the name of D. Yadav pertains to Mr. Devendra Yadav, MLA of Bhilai present applicant and this cash was handed over to him through a person namely Nawaz near the house of minister Mohammad Akbar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor in the prosecution complaint filed by the Income Tax Department or in the ECIR filed by the Enforcement Directorate, as such, the applicant is entitled to get the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended that since the investigation is over and the entire record is in possession of the learned trial Court and nothing is required to be recovered or collected any more and the applicant will attend the trial and will not interfere in the process of trial. It has been further contended that since the investigation is over and the entire record is in possession of the learned trial Court and nothing is required to be recovered or collected any more and the applicant will attend the trial and will not interfere in the process of trial. He would further submit that the applicant is fulfilling the twin conditions of the bail as provided in Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that since the charge-sheet has been filed, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. To butress his submission, learned counsel for the applicant would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and High Courts in case of Susheela Agrawal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929, Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. State of Punjab & another [Crl. Appeal No. 827/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 4336/2020) (decided on 07.05.2019)], Pawan Kumar Agrawal & another Vs. Enforcement Directorate [ SLP(Crl.) No. 2106/2022) (decided on 01.02.2023)], Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. Enforcement Directorate [MCRCA No. 1162/2023) (decided on 04.10.2023)], Vimal Agrawal & another Vs. Enforcement Directorate [MCRC(A) No. 1455/2021 (decided on 09.02.2023)], Shivam Vs. State of U.P. & another [Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. No. 2110 of 2023)(decided on 05.04.2021)], State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliya reported in 1977 AIR 244, Satender Antil Vs. CBI & another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , Teesta Atul Setalwad Vs. State of Gujarat [Crl.A No. 2022/2023, SLP(Crl.) No. 8503/2023 (decided on 19.07.2023)], Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Gopla Reddy & another [Crl. Appeal No. 534/2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 8260/2021 (decided on 24.02.2023)], Sumit Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [Crl. Appeal No. 1436/2013, SLP (Crl.) No. 02/2013 (decided on 12.09.2013)], State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 711 , Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Crl. Appeal No. 730/2013, SLP (Crl.) No. 3404/2013 (decided on 09.05.2013], J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Crl. Appeal No. 738/2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 8305/2021 (decided on 05.05.2022)], Sadanand Gangaram Kadam Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & another [Crl. Appeal NO. 514/2024, SLP (Crl.) No. 16236/2023 (decided on 12.02.2024], State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Crl. Appeal No. 730/2013, SLP (Crl.) No. 3404/2013 (decided on 09.05.2013], J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Crl. Appeal No. 738/2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 8305/2021 (decided on 05.05.2022)], Sadanand Gangaram Kadam Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & another [Crl. Appeal NO. 514/2024, SLP (Crl.) No. 16236/2023 (decided on 12.02.2024], State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Balchand @ Baliaya, reported reported in (1977) 4 SCC 308 & Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another [Crl. Appeal No. 704/2024, SLP (Crl.) No. 10047/2023 (decided on 07.02.2024)]. 7. Controverting the aforesaid submission made by the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent has filed reply to the application mainly contending that the present applicant has played a specific role in commission of offence. It has been further contended that ED investigation revealed that unless cash @ Rs. 25 per tonne of coal transported was paid to associates of Suryakant Tiwari, the concerned mining officer in the office of collectorate would not issue the requisite transit pass. All of this was facilitated/coordinated by Suryakant Tiwari with clout of Smt. Soumya Chaurasia and other Government officials. It has been further contended that once these associates of Shri Suryakant Tiwari received the additional charge of Rs. 25 per tonne of coal to be transported, message was then communicated to the Mining Officer (s) and thereafter the delivery orders were cleared for transport. It has also been stated that associates (collection agents deployed at difference places) of Suryakant Tiwari used to maintain date of coal delivery order and payment of illegal levy of Rs. 25 per tonne on coal and after collection of levy, they used to hand over such cash amount along with collection date to Rajnikant Tiwari, Nikhil Chandrakar and Roshan Kumar Singh at the house of Suryakant Tiwari i.e. I-34, Anupam Nagar, Raipur. At, I-34, Rajnikant Tiwari, Nikhil Chandrakar and Roshan Kumar Singh used to maintain consolidated data of this illegal levy collection, to collect the cash and kept here and thereafter, from there, this illegal cash was being used for making bribes to Saumya Chaurasia, other senior bureaucrats and politicians, for incurring Misc. Political Expenses & Election campaign, purchasing immovable properties and coal washeries by Suryakant Tiwari & other members of coal syndicate, Misc. expenses of Suryakant Tiwari and other syndicate members etc. Political Expenses & Election campaign, purchasing immovable properties and coal washeries by Suryakant Tiwari & other members of coal syndicate, Misc. expenses of Suryakant Tiwari and other syndicate members etc. It has also been stated in the reply that part of collected illegal cash was also being transferred to house of Suryakant Tiwari and Laxmikant Tiwari in Mahasamund for safe keeping. It has also been contended that Laxmikant Tiwari, elder brother of Suryakant Tiwari is the main associate and confidant of Suryakant Tiwari. As per the findings of the investigation under the PMLA, 2002, he was the keeper of the accounts and cash for the entire scam, he is responsible for acquisition, possession, concealment, use of the proceeds of crime. He has been claiming assets purchased with the PoC as untainted assets. Therefore, he has directly indulged in the offence of Money Laundering as defined Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. Statements by Nikhil Chandrakar, Laxmikant Tiwari and others would show that Rajnikant Tiwari used to handle cash payments for getting accommodation entries from various person also. 8. It has also been contended that complaint dated 30.01.2023 has been filed against Suryakant Tiwari and others for commission of offence under Money Laundering Act and the learned Special Judge (PMLA) Raipur has taken cognizance of the said prosecution complaint. It has also been contended that from bare perusal of statement of Rajnikant Tiwari, Navneet Tiwari, Moeenuddin Quereshi, Hemant Jaiswal, Jogendra Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh and Chandra Prakash Jaiswal, all associates of Suryakant Tiwari recorded by Income Tax Authorities revealed that illegal collection of levy on transport of coal was being done on the directions of Suryakant Tiwari. It has also been stated that only after the payment of illegal levy, the delivery order of the coal is cleared from mining department. It has also been contended that it is not mandatory that every person who appears to be guilty of the offence of Money Laundering is required to be arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 and arrest is carried out to only in cases where it appears that custodial interrogation of such person is required during the course of investigation. As such no requirement was felt during investigation till date, therefore arresting in terms of Section 19 of PMLA, 2002 has not been carried out. 9. As such no requirement was felt during investigation till date, therefore arresting in terms of Section 19 of PMLA, 2002 has not been carried out. 9. It has been further contended that the present applicant has obtained a cash of Rs. 3 crore out of the proceed of crime. The applicant in his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002 has confirmed that Mr. Suryakant Tiwari is known to him for last five years, he used to make conversation with Mr. Suryakant Tiwari over phone/whatsapp call and being In-charge of Khairagarh by-poll conducted in April, 2022, he was looking after campaigning, management of party workers related to Khairagrh by-election etc. and there was a whatsapp chat dated 09.04.2022 has been collected by the Enforcement Directorate and in the diary of the same day, shows that the present applicant has received an amount of Rs. 35 lacs from Suryakant Tiwari. The whatsapp chat dated 05.04.2022 further shows that the present applicant has asked Suryakant Tiwari for arranging a programme of Dr. Kumar Biswas on Ram Navami and further asked Mr. Tiwari to arrange @ Rs. 25 lacs excluding tax which had to be made from genuine income only. The further case of the Enforcement Directorate is that Nikhil Chandrakar who is close associate of Suryakant Tiwari, whose statement has been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on 26.12.2022 & 27.12.2022 has stated that the entry in the name of D. Yadav pertains to Mr. Devendra Yadav, MLA of Bhilai present applicant and this cash was handed over to him through a person namely Nawaz near the house of minister Mohammad Akbar. 10. It is further contended that applicant’s custodial interrogation may be required for questioning during the course of further investigation, as such, the grant of bail at this stage may impede the investigation being conducted by the Directorate and it will be detrimental effect on investigation being conducted by the Directorate. He would further submit that the applicant is Ex.- MLA and highly influenceable person, as such, in case present applicant is granted anticipatory bail, the applicant may influence the witnesses concerned in the present case. It has been further contended that various suspects in the present case have attempted to evade the process of law for a very long time. Thus, it has been prayed for dismissal of the present bail application. 11. It has been further contended that various suspects in the present case have attempted to evade the process of law for a very long time. Thus, it has been prayed for dismissal of the present bail application. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the ECIR with utmost satisfaction. 12. The point to be determined by this Court is (1) whether the applicant though not named in the FIR, prosecution complaint filed by the Income Tax Department nor named in the ECIR submitted by the Enforcement Directorate, t can be involved in the commission of offence under the PMLA, 200 and (2) Whether the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 are available on record to release the applicant by granting anticipatory bail. Point No. 1 13. Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 deals with the money laundering, and it states that whoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected it as untainted property shall be guilty of money laundering. Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 deals with the punishment of money laundering. Section 22 of the PMLA, 2002 discusses presumption regarding records or property in certain cases, asserting if any properties for records or discovered in the possession or control of an individual during a survey or search, it is presumed such records or properties belong to that person and the contents therein are deemed value. 14. Section 24 of the PMLA, 2002 discusses the burden of proof, indicating that if an individual is charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, it is presumed that the person is involved in money laundering unless proven otherwise. Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002 addresses offence triable by Special Courts, stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Special Court under sub-Section 1(b) can take cognizance of offence under Section 3 without the accused being committed to it for trial. 15. In the case of Pavana Dibbur Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement [Crl.A. No.2779/2023 (DD 29.11.2023)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 establishing that the offence under Section 3 can occur subsequent to the commission of a schedule offence. 15. In the case of Pavana Dibbur Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement [Crl.A. No.2779/2023 (DD 29.11.2023)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 establishing that the offence under Section 3 can occur subsequent to the commission of a schedule offence. It was elucidated that an individual, regardless of his connection to the scheduled offence, is deemed guilty under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002, if he is knowingly assisting in concealing the proceeds of the crime or facilitating the use of proceeds. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. Coming back to Section 3 of the PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389 of the IPC relating to “extortion” are scheduled offences included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389 of IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in paragraph 270 of the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the PMLA. 16. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the PMLA. 16. In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of all the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence are quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime. Thus, in such a case, the accused against whom the complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA is filed will benefit from the scheduled offence ending by acquittal or discharge of all the accused. Similarly, he will get the benefit of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence. However, an accused in the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. Thus, the second contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not shown as an accused in the chargesheets filed in the scheduled offences deserves to be rejected.” 16. In the case of T.D. Sonia Vs. Deputy Director reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8182, the High Court of Madras ruled that even if the accused was not directly engaged in criminal activity responsible for generating the proceeds of the crime, his involvement in any capacity with the proceeds of such crime renders him liable under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. 17. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 has held at paras 251 & 295 as under:- "251. The “proceeds of crime” being the core of the ingredients constituting the offence of money-laundering, that expression needs to be construed strictly. 17. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 has held at paras 251 & 295 as under:- "251. The “proceeds of crime” being the core of the ingredients constituting the offence of money-laundering, that expression needs to be construed strictly. In that, all properties recovered or attached by the investigating agency in connection with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under the general law cannot be regarded as proceeds of crime. There may be cases where the property involved in the commission of scheduled offence attached by the investigating agency dealing with that offence, cannot be wholly or partly regarded as proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act — so long as the whole or some portion of the property has been derived or obtained by any person “as a result of” criminal activity relating to the stated scheduled offence. To be proceeds of crime, therefore, the property must be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, “as a result of” criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. To put it differently, the vehicle used in commission of scheduled offence may be attached as property in the concerned case (crime), it may still not be proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. Similarly, possession of unaccounted property acquired by legal means may be actionable for tax violation and yet, will not be regarded as proceeds of crime unless the concerned tax legislation prescribes such violation as an offence and such offence is included in the Schedule of the 2002 Act. For being regarded as proceeds of crime, the property associated with the scheduled offence must have been derived or obtained by a person “as a result of” criminal activity relating to the concerned scheduled offence. This distinction must be borne in mind while reckoning any property referred to in the scheduled offence as proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. Dealing with proceeds of crime by way of any process or activity constitutes offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the Act. 295. As aforesaid, in this backdrop the amendment Act 2 of 2013 came into being. Dealing with proceeds of crime by way of any process or activity constitutes offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the Act. 295. As aforesaid, in this backdrop the amendment Act 2 of 2013 came into being. Considering the purport of the amended provisions and the experience of implementing/ enforcement agencies, further changes became necessary to strengthen the mechanism regarding prevention of money-laundering. It is not right in assuming that the attachment of property (provisional) under the second proviso, as amended, has no link with the scheduled offence. Inasmuch as Section 5(1) envisages that such an action can be initiated only on the basis of material in possession of the authorised officer indicative of any person being in possession of proceeds of crime. The precondition for being proceeds of crime is that the property has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily being accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Such a person besides facing the consequence of provisional attachment order, may end up in being named as accused in the complaint to be filed by the authorised officer concerning offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act." 18. In the case of Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarkhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1261, the Apex Court with reference to Section 106 of the Evidence Act has ruled that Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts, which are especially within the knowledge of the accused, and which he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience. As such, it is incumbent for the applicant to prima facie rebut the said allegation that the amount in question is not proceeds of crime. 19. As such, it is incumbent for the applicant to prima facie rebut the said allegation that the amount in question is not proceeds of crime. 19. From the above stated discussion and considering the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002, it is apparent from reading of Section 3, and the legal precedent established by the Court of Law with reference to the said provision is as follows:- (i) An individual, even if not directly involved in the criminal activity that generated the proceeds of the crime, can face prosecution for the offence under Section 3, and be punished under Section 4, if he knowingly participates in concealing or utilizing the proceeds of the crime. (ii) In case under the PMLA, an accused need not necessarily be implicated in the scheduled offence, he can still be prosecuted under the PMLA as long as the scheduled offence exists. 20. Therefore, the applicant can be subjected to prosecution under the PMLA, 2002 if it can be established that the applicant has prima facie committed an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. 21. From the statement recorded as reflected in the ECIR that there is evidence to suggest that the applicant had knowledge that the money he has received was derived from criminal activity related to a scheduled offence and did he knowingly assist accused Laxmikant Tiwari in concealing or transferring illicit proceeds of crime which is essential to constitute an offense under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. Therefore, the money obtained by the applicant is deemed to proceed of crime and as such, he has prima facie committed the crime under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. Thus, Point No. 1 is answered against the present applicant. Point No. 2 22. Therefore, the money obtained by the applicant is deemed to proceed of crime and as such, he has prima facie committed the crime under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. Thus, Point No. 1 is answered against the present applicant. Point No. 2 22. For better understanding, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, which reads as under:- “Section 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 or 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. [(1-A) 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 [* * *] subsection (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.” 23. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has considered parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in PMLA in case of M. Gopal Reddy Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2023 and has held in paragraph 6.3 & 7, which are as under:- “6.3 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and the seriousness of the offences alleged against respondent No. 1. As per the catena of decision of this Court, more particularly, observed in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra) in case of economic offences, which are having an impact on the society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.PC. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasoning given by the High Court and as observed hereinabove, the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application under Section 438 Cr.PC and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 herein in connection with F. No. ECIR/HYZO/36/2020 dated 15.12.2020 is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 be dealt with in accordance with law. However, it is observed and made clear that after respondent No. 1 is arrested, if he files any regular bail application, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits and considering the material collected during enquiry/investigation of the case. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.” 24. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 , has also examined the grant of anticipatory bail looking to the status of accused who may influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence collected by the Directorate of Enforcement and rejected grant of anticipatory bail. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 14 to 17 as under :- “14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 14 to 17 as under :- “14. On going into all the details furnished by the CBI in the form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating Officer, Hyderabad, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we feel that at this stage, the release of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence. Though it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is in no way connected with the persons in power, we are of the view that the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions. 15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 16. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 17. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.” 25. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 has held at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:- “78. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364 , it was held as under:- “5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest…..” 79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 , the Supreme Court held as under:- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” [underlining added] 80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52 , in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720 , while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent- Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 26. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the present case, prima facie the Enforcement Directorate has collected certain material against the applicant, particularly the statement of Nikhil Chandrakar recorded under Section 17 & 50 of the PMLA, 2002 and statement of the applicant recorded under Section 17 of the the PMLA, 2002 as well as the diary entry of 09.04.2022 wherein it has been mentioned that Rs. 35 lacs have been received by the present applicant from Suryakant Tiwari for Khairagarh by-election and also the whatsapp chat dated 05.04.2022 wherein the present applicant asked Suryakant Tiwari for arranging of Dr. Kumar Viswas on Ram Navami and further asked to arrange amount of Rs. 25 lacs excluding taxes which had to made from genuine income only. 27. It is pertinent to mention here that while recording the statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, Nikhil Chandrakar has corroborated the cash entries made in the name of Devendra Yadav with whatsapp chat happened in a Whatsapp Group named ‘Durg Group’, in which, Rajnikant Tiwari, Nikhil Chandrakar and Roshan Singh are the members. He further disclosed that after handing over the amount to the present applicant or his person, they used to drop a message over the Whastapp for real time update and subsequently Rajnikant Tiwari used to note down the same in his hand written diaries whereas in the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 is denied the conversation with Suryakant Tiwari. The material so collected by the investigation prima facie reflects that many hand written entries in the diaries, name of the present applicant exisst. Thus, he was knowingly and actively obtained the proceeds of crime and committed the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. 28. In view of above factual and legal matrix, material collected by the Enforcement Directorate, prima facie, involvement of the applicant is reflected. The material collected by the Enforcement Directorate has not been rebutted which also prima facie reflects about involvement of the applicant. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions which are required for grant of bail under the PMLA, 2002, is equally applicable for grant of anticipatory bail, which has not been satisfied by the present applicant. 29. Considering the above stated facts and law, gravity of offence, possibility of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie considering the fact that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for grant of anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail. Thus, Point No. 2 is also answered against the present applicant. 30. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 31. Thus, Point No. 2 is also answered against the present applicant. 30. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 31. However, it is clarified that the observations made in this judgment, either way, are only for disposal of the present bail application, and these would not influence the trial court on the merits of the case, which would proceed in accordance with law and decide on the basis of evidence led before it. All disputed factual and legal issues are left open.