ORDER : ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J. By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA on behalf of the applicant herein, is seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024. 2. The applicant was arrested in pursuance of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 of 2024 registered with Raipur Zone dated 11.04.2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement. The ED had registered the above stated ECIR pursuant to the predicate offence which was registered by EOW, Raipur dated 17.01.2024 as FIR No. 04 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420,467, 468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the applicant falls under Schedule One, Part -A (offence under the IPC) and para -8 (Offence under PC Act) as per Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA. 3. It is submitted that the apart from the present case, the applicant has following criminal antecedents against him. i) FIR No. 196/2023 registered by PS Kasna, Greater Noida, Commissionerate Guatam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 468,471,473,484 and 120-B of IPC. The charge sheet has been filed against co-accused in the said matter however no cognizance of the same has been taken. Further the proceedings in the FIR has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, he was released from custody in the said case. ii) FIR No. 04/2024 has been registered by the ACB, Raipur u/s. 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC read with Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant was arrested and charge sheet has been filed inter alia against the applicant therein. The matter is pending trial before the learned Court of Special Judge (PC Act) Raipur. This FIR is the predicate offence for the ECIR 04. iii) ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA (complain filed by the income Tax Department under provisions of the Income Tax Act read with Section 120-B IPC).Charge sheet has been filed by the ED in this ECIR on 04.07.2023 however, vide Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 08.04.2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023 quashed the complaint with a finding that there was no scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime in relation to the said case. 4. 4. As per the case of prosecution, the investigation is concluded and as per the prosecution complaint quoted “ there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the charge of commission of offence of money laundering against the applicant. Out of the total proceeds of crime, ED has already identified and attached assets worth Rs. 205 crores approximately. Investigation into the role of the accused persons is complete and hence the present complaint is being filed.” 5. The investigation in relation to ECIR 11 of 2022 is concluded and the prosecution complaint was filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the complaint however based on the investigation carried out in pursuance of ECIR 11 of 2022 the said ECIR (4 of 2024) is registered. There is nothing new that has come on record. On reading of the complaint it is clear that the material of investigation before ECIR 11 of 2022 is used in ECIR 4 of 2024, including foreign trips and investment for which on 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023 the statements of the wife of the applicant under Section 50 of the PMLA were recorded in ECIR 11 of 2022, and thereafter on 04.06.2024, 05.06.2024,06,06,2024 and 08.06.2024 the statements of wife of the applicant were recorded in ECIR 4 of 2024 and the same version was made before the investigating officer. Similarly the statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA in ECIR 11 of 2022 on 31.03.2023, 01.04.2023,03,04.2023,08.04.2023,19.04.2023 and 20.04.2023 and in ECIR 4 of 2024, on 8.05.2024, 31.05.2024, 09.08.2024,10.08.2024,11.08.2024,12.08.2024, 13.08.2024 and 14.08.2024. The applicant retracted his statement on 05.04.2023,11.04.2023 and 21.04.2023 in ECIR 11 of 2022, however, he has not retracted his statements in ECIR 4 of 2024. 6. Shri Yatin Ojha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that what was found from ECIR 11 is culminated into ECIR 4. On the premise that only complaint is forged not the material and investigation stands quashed. Once complaint goes everything goes. Supreme Court says when foundation goes the superstructure collapses. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, it has been held by Justice B.Pardiwala that “stream can’t be higher than the source.” 7. In one of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it has been held initially the officer who is not empowered started investigation under NDPS. It is nothing like wait till the trial when factual aspect is there. In one of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it has been held initially the officer who is not empowered started investigation under NDPS. It is nothing like wait till the trial when factual aspect is there. The factum which the learned Sr. counsel intends to prove is that whatever material was there in ECIR 11 has been made the foundation in ECIR 4. He contended that between the registration of ECIR 4 and the arrest of the applicant ie. 08.08.2024, there is no new material found or till date ie. 5.10.2024. He has placed his reliance in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024, INSC 739 in para 13 as under: “We have carefully considered the submissions. The main document relied upon by the ED showing incriminatory material against the appellant is a part of the pen drive seized by the State police from the appellant's premises in connection with scheduled offences. The concerned Court dealing with the scheduled offences has provided the printed version of the soft files in the seized pen drive. There is no reason, at this stage, to doubt the authenticity of the soft files. There is also prima facie material to show a deposit of cash amount of Rs.1.34 crores in the appellant's bank account. At this stage, the contention of the appellant Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.3986 of 2024 Page 9 of 25 regarding the deposit of remuneration received as MLA and agriculture income cannot be accepted in the absence of any prima facie evidence to show the existence of the appellant's cash income as MLA and the appellant's agriculture income. Therefore, at this stage, it will be very difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case against the appellant in the complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA and material relied upon therein.” 8. Further in the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 45 of the PMLA has in no uncertain terms held in para 25 that even in PMLA ases Bail is a matter of rule and jail is an exception. Paragraph 25 reads as under: Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. Paragraph 25 reads as under: Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.3986 of 2024 considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time. 9. Contention of learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is that Section 45 of the PMLA cannot be read independently and take away the liberty of a citizen. The interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA is no longer res integra in as much as Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement has held that Article 21 of the Constitution ensures liberty to a citizen, which is a far more higher and valuable right guaranteed under the Constitution, and therefore Section 45 of the PMLA cannot be read in stringent terms as it is drafter. Similarly, in the case of Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 637 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Bail is the Rule and Jail is an exception, and that Article 21 of the Constitution confers a higher right than Section 45 of the PMLA. 10. It is contended that the applicant has been illegally arrested in the first ECIR on 12.05.2023 immediately after he filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, he was granted bail by this Court on 15.02/2024 after remaining for 14 days in ED custody and over nine months of judicial custody. The applicant has been in illegal custody of the ED on the same set of allegations for over nine months and the present ECIR is the same and only ECIR number has been changed. Learned Sr. The applicant has been in illegal custody of the ED on the same set of allegations for over nine months and the present ECIR is the same and only ECIR number has been changed. Learned Sr. counsel contended that there was absolutely no necessity of any arrest or custodial interrogation of the applicant and the applicant could not have been arrested in the same case for the same allegations for the second time for the alleged offence under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA. It has been contended that the applicant has already been examined by the ED even in relation to the second ECIR and there was absolutely no requirement of custodial interrogation. It has been contended that in the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in ECIR 11, upon a specific query by this Court, the ED had stated that “no custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required at this stage as the charge sheet has been filed in the instant case” therefore as per the submission of the ED, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. 11. It is contended that the investigating agencies have been acting in tandem with each other to elongate the pre-trial incarceration of the applicant. The applicant had remained in judicial custody for 14 months, 9 months in ED and ECIR 11. He had further undnergone 5 months judicial custody including 14 days of police custody in FIR registered by ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh FIR. The applicant has also undergone judicial custody of two months in the UP FIR including 4 days of police custody. The applicant has suffered prolonged incarceration in relation to the investigation conducted by different investigating agencies for the same alleged offence and had also suffered 9 months custody in relation to ECIR 11, the trial has not yet concluded therefore, he may be granted bail. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl) No. 3205/2024, wherein it has been clarified that even under PMLA the governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception”. 12. This observations is significant and if read in the context of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 [Manish Sisodia (II) Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl) No. 3205/2024, wherein it has been clarified that even under PMLA the governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception”. 12. This observations is significant and if read in the context of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 [Manish Sisodia (II) Vs. Directorate of Enforcement], wherein it has been observed as under : “53…..From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception.” 13. All that Section 45 of PMLA mentions is that certain conditions are to be satisfied. The principle that, “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is only a paraphrasing of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Liberty of the individual is always a Rule and deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can only be by the procedure established by law, which has to be a valid and reasonable procedure. Section 45 of PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re-write this principle to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. As set out earlier, all that is required is that in cases where bail is subject to the satisfaction of twin conditions, those conditions must be satisfied. 14. Further he has reiterated in Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024) where the accused has already been in custody for a considerable number of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty. He has relied upon para 28 of the judgment which reads as under: 28. He has relied upon para 28 of the judgment which reads as under: 28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years.” 15. He has further relied upon the judgment of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51 ; Surinder Singh @ Shingara singh Vs.State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 and Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 . With regard to the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the applicant, time and again it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. It has been further contended that Section 436-A Cr.P.C. should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period of half the maximum period of imprisonment. 16. It has been further contended that Section 436-A Cr.P.C. should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period of half the maximum period of imprisonment. He contended that when the trial is not proceedings for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. He has further reiterated to the judgment of Manish Sisodia, wherein it has been observed as under: “29. On the necessity to satisfy the preconditions mentioned in Section 19(1) of the PML Act, we have quoted from the judgment of this Court in Padam Narain Aggarwal (supra) and also referred to and quoted from the Canadian judgment in Gifford (supra). Existence and validity of the “reasons to believe” goes to the root of the power to arrest. The subjective opinion of the arresting officer must be founded and based upon fair and objective consideration of the material, as available with them on the date of arrest. On the reading of the “reasons to believe” the court must form the ‘secondary opinion’ on the validity of the exercise undertaken for compliance of Section 19(1) of the PML Act when the arrest was made. The “reasons to believe” that the person is guilty of an offence under the PML Act should be founded on the material in the form of documents and oral statements.” 17. He has contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused persons solely on the ground of delay in trial coupled with long pre-trial incarceration, despite the alleged gravity of offence and the restrictions contained in special statutes on grant of bail. He has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 22137 of 2024, Vijay Nair Vs. ED; order dated 06.09.2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No. 8439 of 2024, Neeraj Singal Vs. ED ; order dated 27.08.2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No.10778 of 2024 in Kalvakunta Kavitha Vs. ED; order dated 28.08.2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No.5416 of 2024 in Prem Prakash Vs. ED; order dated 30.07.2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No.3205 of 2024 in Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra, 2024 SC Online SC 1693; Jainam Rathod Vs. ED; order dated 28.08.2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No.5416 of 2024 in Prem Prakash Vs. ED; order dated 30.07.2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No.3205 of 2024 in Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra, 2024 SC Online SC 1693; Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana 2022 Online SC 1506; Sujay U Desai Vs. SFIO 2022 SCC Online SC 1507. 18. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant further contended that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and the primary object is to secure the presence of the accused to stand trial. He has referred to the judgment of P.Chidambaram Vs. ED (2020) 13 SCC 791 . It is contended that in relation to the investigation in alleged liquor scam, the applicant has already undergone 11 months custody and 20 days of ED custody and in the first prosecution complaint filed by the ED, 15 witnesses have been named and the investigation is continuing and thus, the trial may be likely to take time and therefore the applicant may be released on bail. He further contends that the investigation qua the applicant is complete and the prosecution complaint in ECIR 11 has already been quashed and therefore the applicant may be released on bail. He has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI SLP No. 5191 /2021; Krishnan Subramanian Vs.State NCT of Delhi 2022 SCC Online Del 1384. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 : “It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detail the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.” 19. We do not see any good reason to detail the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.” 19. It has been contended that the applicant is an ITS Officer of Department of Telecom and was working in the Excise Department on deputation as Special Secretary and Jt. MD/MD of CSMCL and he had no knowledge of the working and functioning of the Excise Department. All the policy proposals were proposed by the Commissioner, Excise Chhattisgarh to the Government of Chhattisgarh. The proposals so received were placed before the Cabinet and on approval, they were implemented and hence the applicant has no role to play in framing of policy and its approvals. Further the applicant had no role to play in increasing of landing price of Part A liquor. The tender of supply of country liquor was floated by Commissioner Excise Chhattisgarh Mr. Kamal Preet Singh (IAS) and finalized by him. The applicant has no role to play in the entire process of floating the tender and approving rate of supply of country liquor and the said price was in fact increased at the behest of the distillers themselves citing increase in the price of raw material. The hologram supply tender was floated by Commissioner Excise, Chhattisgarh and approved by him as the applicant was only a member in the Six member Committee constituted by the Government of finalize eligibility criteria and to evaluate the bids which consist of Senior Government Officers of various departments as under: 1. Professor and Head Physics Department of NIT Raipur 2. Professor of Physics Department of NIT Raipur 3. Technical Director of NIC, Ministry of IT, Government of India 4. Joint Director of Finance Depatment, Government of Chhattisgarh 5. Additional Commissioner of Excise Department 6. The applicant herein. 20. It is contended that the concept of FL-10A license was a policy decision. It was proposed by Commissioner (Excise) Chhattisgarh to the Government and the proposal was placed before the Cabinet. The Cabinet approved the proposal. On approval of Cabinet the FL 10A licenses were issued by the Commissioner Excise Chhattisgarh and the applicant has no role to play. With regard to allegation of supply of unaccounted liquor, he contended that the liquor is manufactured in distilleries which operated under the Chhattisgarh Distillery Rules 1995. The Cabinet approved the proposal. On approval of Cabinet the FL 10A licenses were issued by the Commissioner Excise Chhattisgarh and the applicant has no role to play. With regard to allegation of supply of unaccounted liquor, he contended that the liquor is manufactured in distilleries which operated under the Chhattisgarh Distillery Rules 1995. The powers to operate and govern distilleries is vested with Commissioner Excise and the Excise Officers posted in the department. The manufactured liquor in the distillery is bottled under the provision of the Chhattisgarh Country Spirit Rules, 1995. The process to monitor and regulate the bottling under this Rule is also vested with the Commissioner Excise Chhattisgarh. The allegation that the applicant arranged duplicate hologram with Vidhu Gupta is baseless as the supply of the holograms was done to Commissioner Excise Chhattisgarh as per tender conditions. The hologram Section of Excise Department issues PO to M/s. Prism Holography for supply of hologram which is under the custody of hologram section. After payment of the cost, requisition is submitted, payment is verified and issue instructions for QR coding and numbering to the local representatives of hologram supplier. This numbering machined which is under the control of hologram section is issued to the distilleries who in turn affix the same on country liquor bottles and all the activities, storage, payment of hologram supply to distillers etc. is under the control of Commissioner Excise Chhatisgarh CSMCL and the applicant is not at all involved in the entire process. 21. He contended that the allegation against the applicant that large amount of cash was transferred to Netherlands and UAE to acquire benami foreign asset is completely baseless and that neither the applicant nor his family has any foreign assets in UAE and Netherland. Similar allegation has been levelled against the applicant in the first prosecution complaint which has already been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been contended that the entire case of the ED is completely concocted and false and is rife with lacunae. It has been alleged that the applicant has been deputed as the MD,CSMCL was the “fist step” in institutionalizing the Part-A commission. It has been further alleged that the alleged liquor syndicate started functioning from 01.04.2019 onwards and the applicant was appointed only in May 2019. Further the alleged fake hologram manufacturing company ie. It has been alleged that the applicant has been deputed as the MD,CSMCL was the “fist step” in institutionalizing the Part-A commission. It has been further alleged that the alleged liquor syndicate started functioning from 01.04.2019 onwards and the applicant was appointed only in May 2019. Further the alleged fake hologram manufacturing company ie. M/s. Prizm Holography and Films Securities Pvt. Ltd. was awarded the tender for supply of holograms for the first time only in October 2019. Hence no Part -B bribes could have been collected from April 2019 and no fake holograms were manufactured as alleged by the ED. He has also contended that the company which used to supply holohrams prior to PHFSPL ie. M/s. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. has neither been examined nor made an accused in the instant case by the ED. 22. Lastly, it has been contended the there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant apart from the FIRs that have been registered on the behest of the Directorate of Enforcement in connection to the alleged liquor policy scam and thus no predicated offence is made out against the applicant and therefore he may be released on bail. 23. Per contra, Dr. Sourabh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/Investigating Agency ie. Enforcement Directorate submits as under: Hon’ble supreme Court in its order dated 08.04.2024 had only quashed the prosecution complaint filed in relation ot ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 and not the ECIR and the PC was quashed on technical ground of non-availability of scheduled offence (120-B of IPC) qua the judgment in Pavana Dibbur Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023. He submits that the applicant is involved in the activities connected with the offence of money laundering ie. acquisition, possession, concealment and projecting or claiming as untainted property as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. In the judgment dated 27.07.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chouhdary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others Special leave Petitioner (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014 has held that it is no longer res integra that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA have to be met before grant of bail under PMLA. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Court is as under: “135. Union of India and Others Special leave Petitioner (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014 has held that it is no longer res integra that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA have to be met before grant of bail under PMLA. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Court is as under: “135. We are conscious of the fact that in paragraph 53 of the Nikesh Tarachand Shah642, the Court noted that it had struck down Section 45 of the 2002 as a whole. However, in paragraph 54, the declaration is only in respect of further (two) conditions for release on bail as contained in Section 45(1), being unconstitutional as the same violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, nothing would remain in that observation or for that matter, the declaration as the defect in the provision [Section 45(1)], as existed then, and noticed by this Court has been cured by the Parliament by enacting amendment Act 13 of 2018 which has come into force with effect from 19.4.2018. We, therefore, confined ourselves to the challenge to the twin conditions in the provision, as it stands to this date post amendment of 2018 and which, on analysis of the decisions referred to above dealing with concerned enactments having similar twin conditions as valid, we must reject the challenge. Instead, we hold that the provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002 Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act to combat the menace of money-laundering having transnational consequences including impacting the financial systems and sovereignty and integrity of the countries.” 24. It is submitted that Section 45 of the PMLA starts with non-obstante clause and for deciding the bail in PMLA case, the conditions envisaged in Section 45 are invariably satisfied. It is further submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS is akin to Section 45 PMLA and Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 37 in the case of State of Kerala Vs. It is further submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS is akin to Section 45 PMLA and Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 37 in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 held as under: “19.The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non- obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.” 25. It has been contended that in the IA filed in WP No. 153/2023, the relief for quashing the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was made by another co-accused ie Anil Tuteja however the said relief was not granted to the applicant. It is contended that the ECIR 11/2022 was recorded on 18.11.2022 on the basis of Income Tax complaint filed before Tis Hazari Court Delhi while ECIR/04/2024 was recorded on the basis of FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by EOW/ACB Raipur, Chhattisgarh police under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC and 7 & 12 of the Pct Act, 1988. These are the schedule offences included I para 1 and 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to PMLA, 2002 as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. It is further contended that the Investigating Agency has shared the findings in ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 under Section 66(2) of the PMLA with the EOW/ACB Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of proceedings in WP(Crl.) No. 153/2023, the fact of registration of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 on the basis of EOW/ACB FIR was also informed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it did not bar the ED from recording new ECIR. Subsequently. The new ECIR has been recorded on the basis of FIR by the Chhattisgarh police. 26. During the pendency of proceedings in WP(Crl.) No. 153/2023, the fact of registration of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 on the basis of EOW/ACB FIR was also informed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it did not bar the ED from recording new ECIR. Subsequently. The new ECIR has been recorded on the basis of FIR by the Chhattisgarh police. 26. The present investigation is based on the new ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 which is recorded on 11.04.2024 on the basis of FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh State police at EOW/ACB Raipur. Further the applicant Arun Pati Triapthi was the mastermind of the liquor scam. The applicant was arrested by the ED on 08.08.2024 and he was remanded in judicial custody for 6 days till 14.08.2024 and subsequently was remanded periodically. He contended that the present arrest was made completely in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 1,2 and 3 of Section 19 of PMLA 2002. He contended that the applicant was not granted regular bail vide order dated 13.02.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 60 of 2024 though Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.10.2023 had advised to grant only interim bail. The relevant order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP No. 15/2023 is as under: “A reading of the aforesaid order, prima facie gives rise to a scenario that the High Court ought to have continued the interim bail order to await the order to be passed by this Court. The High Court’s order rejecting the petition for bail and vacating the interim bail has resulted in the issuance of the NBW. Reply may be filed by the Enforcement Directorate within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List it after six weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner(s) would continue on interim bail and the order issuing NBW is stayed.” 27. The High Court vide its order dated 6.10.2023 rejected the bail applications of the co-accused in spite of the order dated 18.07.2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the proceedings were stayed. The accused were not surrendering before the Court and as a result, the directorate filed an application before the appellate court which issued NBWs to the three accused namely Nitesh Purohit, Anwar Dhebar and Trilok Singh Dhillon. It is further contended that the applicant was arrested in a separate case this time based on different set of scheduled offence. The accused were not surrendering before the Court and as a result, the directorate filed an application before the appellate court which issued NBWs to the three accused namely Nitesh Purohit, Anwar Dhebar and Trilok Singh Dhillon. It is further contended that the applicant was arrested in a separate case this time based on different set of scheduled offence. The ED has filed a supplementary prosecution complaint qua the applicant on 05.10.2024 and the Special Court has taken cognizance of the same on 5.10.2024. It is further contended that during investigation of new ECIR, the following facts have been collected against the applicant and which have been incorporated in the prosecution complaint filed by the directorate which states that : “The Chhattisgarh Police in its charge sheet have claimed that the applicant had collected bribe money from the Manpower Supplying Agencies of CSMCL. The investigation conducted by the Directorate has revealed that illegal payment to the tune of Rs. 100 crores was made to manpower agencies engaged with CSMCL at liquor shops across Chhattisgarh State during 01.01.2019 to 13.06.2024. It has also been revealed that the applicant had received back Rs. 45 crores out of 100 crores with the help of one Siddarth Singhania received these payments. It has been further revealed that the applicant has obtained around Rs. 65 crores from the liquor scam and other illegal acts performed being the head of CSMCL and he has utilized this fund in foreign countries so as to evade attachment proceedings. This fund is in the name of his wife as a shareholder in Dubai based entity named M/s. Eagle Hunters Group LLC. From the document annexed, the wife of the applicant is shareholder of 50% in the company named M/s. Dutch Eagle Hunters Group LLC and the applicant is having credits to the tune of Rs. 2,29 crores in its bank account. It has also been gathered that the wife of the applicant is actively pursuing the business a Netherland based entities and is fully involved in the operation of the company. It is contended that one Mr. B.R.Lohai, had shared the details pertaining to oversees entities it. Bank statements pertaining to M/s. Nanse BV and the UAE based entity namely M/s. Eagle Hunter LLC relating to the applicant through e-mails. It is contended that one Mr. B.R.Lohai, had shared the details pertaining to oversees entities it. Bank statements pertaining to M/s. Nanse BV and the UAE based entity namely M/s. Eagle Hunter LLC relating to the applicant through e-mails. It is clear from the perusal of the said statement of the bank account wife of the applicant is the shareholder and cash deposit of more than 5 lacs has been shown and on the same date of cash deposit, Rs. 1 crore was transferred to M/s. Nanse BV, a Netherland based company. It has also been gathered that the applicant had used hawala routes to transfer funds collected out of liquor scam to Dubai.” 28. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that money laundering is a serious threat to the national economy and national interest. Orissa High Court in the matter of Mohd. Arif Vs. ED BLAPL No. 2606 of 2020 has observed that the impact of the offence of money laundering is an act of financial terrorism not only posing a serious threat to the financial system of the country but also to the integrity and sovereignty of a nation and has observed as under: “22. the offence of money laundering is nothing but an act of financial terrorism that poses a serious threat not only to the financial system of country but also the integrity and sovereignty of a nation. The International Monetary Fund estimates that laundered money generates about $590 billion to $1.5 trillion per year, which constitutes approximately two to five percent of the world's gross domestic product. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that economic offences are sui generis in nature as they stifle the delicate economic fabirc of a society. These offences permeate to human consciousness posing numerous questions on the very integrity of the business world. The offences, such as this, are committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and often shown to be given scant regard for a sordid residuum left behind to be borne by the unfortunate “starry eyed” petty investors. These offences permeate to human consciousness posing numerous questions on the very integrity of the business world. The offences, such as this, are committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and often shown to be given scant regard for a sordid residuum left behind to be borne by the unfortunate “starry eyed” petty investors. The perpetrators of such deviant “schemes” including the petitioner herein, who promise utopia to their unsuspecting investors seem to have entered in a proverbial “faustian bargain” and are grossly unmindful of untold miseries of the faceless multitudes who are left high and dry and consigned to the flames of suffering.” 28. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested in the old ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 wherein the prosecution complaint has already been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore the period cannot be counted as ED custody while deciding the bail in the instant case. As per facts of the case, the accused have remained in incarceration for 65 days in the instant case till 11.10.2024 and the applicant was apprehended by other investigating agencies and remained in their custodial/judicial remand which cannot attributed to Enforcement Directorate. Learned counsel for the respondent/Investigating Agency ie. Enforcement Directorate submits that the magnitude of the scam is huge and the accused has not been cooperative and is still in possession of proceeds of crime and the counterparts are sitting in Dubai who has not joined the investigation in one pretext or the other and as demonstrated by the Directorate the majority of the proceeds of the crime have been secreted outside India and considering that the applicant frequently travel outside India and his associates are abroad, he is a flight risk as well. It is further submitted that the applicant is an influential person being head of the Excise Department and close to senior bureaucrats, masterminds of the present liquor syndicate and the present case pertains to the offence of Money Laundering to the tune of more than Rs. 2,0000 crores approximately and as has been held by the Courts in a catena of judgments that Economic offences constitute a separate class of offences and bail should normally not be granted in such cases and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. 29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments cited by the learned Sr. 29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments cited by the learned Sr. counsel for the applicant as well as the documents submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate with utmost circumspection. 30. In the present case, the predicate offence has been registered against the applicant by ACB/EOW, Raipur Chhattisgarh under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are schedule offences included in Paragraphs 1 & 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to PMLA, 2002 as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. The predicate offence FIR; documents including the statements recorded u/s. 50 of PMLA, 2002 shared by Mr. Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director, Prosecution Complaint filed by the IT and the date shared by the Income Tax Department were analyzed by the ED. From the statements of the witnesses who had reaffirmed their statements given in the earlier ECIR 11 it has come into fact that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. 31. From the investigation by the ED it has been revealed that CSMCL was used by the syndicate to enforce a parallel excise department which comprises of senior bureaucrats of State, politicians and officials of Excise Department. The applicant was leading the CSMCL and was the MD of the organization. It has been further revealed that the applicant was assigned with the task of maximizing the bribe commission collected on liquor procured by M/s. CSMCL and for making necessary arrangement for sale of non duty paid liquor in the CSMCL run shops. 32. In the instant case, after investigation by the ED, it has come to notice that the placement of the applicant as the head of M/s. CSMCL and Special Secretary in State Excise Department being an influential person and close to senior bureaucrats, masterminds of the present liquor syndicate earned profits. The applicants direct involvement in the commission and execution of the entire scam has been investigated wherein extortion of commission from the sale of unaccounted liquor could be attributed. It is the applicant who was supplying daily/monthly procurement details to the co-accused Anwar Dhebar so that Part -A commission could be collected. The applicants direct involvement in the commission and execution of the entire scam has been investigated wherein extortion of commission from the sale of unaccounted liquor could be attributed. It is the applicant who was supplying daily/monthly procurement details to the co-accused Anwar Dhebar so that Part -A commission could be collected. He used to participate in the meeting with co-accused and unprecedented system of manufacture and sale of unaccounted kacha liquor started from State run shops. He is also involved in the sale of Part-B liquor from State run shops and had also earned proceeds of crime of almost Rs. 50 per case of unaccounted country liquor and had earned further 40 lac cases of unaccounted liquor amounting to Rs. 20 crores. The applicant is alleged to have conspired with M/s. Prizm Holography by lowering the tender conditions and ensured supply of lacs of duplicate holograms which were required to make the1liquor look real liquor. 33. It is the case of prosecution that a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and collecting illegal bribe from the State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings by sale of liquor which is one of the major source of their illegal earning. In the initial investigation, it has come into account that there was massive corruption in the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh since the year 2019. The Excise department was set up to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State but the criminal syndicate have altered the policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves and total earning of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to financial year 2022-23 to the State exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence whatsoever is made against the applicant. After carefully analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. Since, the allegations against the petitioner were serious nature therefore there was material to infer his involvement in serious crimes. 34. After carefully analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. Since, the allegations against the petitioner were serious nature therefore there was material to infer his involvement in serious crimes. 34. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the applicant herein, the manner in which he is alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby was part of a syndicate and involved in the illegal earning by assisting in providing duplicate holograms, transferring funds to foreign lands, charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and considering the nature of charge and gravity of offence, the applicant is charged, which is extremely serious and looking to the special and stringent provision under Section 45(1) of the PMLA for grant of bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. 35. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA, is hereby rejected.