JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to lockdown imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General (hereinafter referred to as 'ASG'), along with Ms. Kanak Verma, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India - Opposite Parties.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 2 of 2018 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

4. The allegation against the petitioner is of money laundering by depositing demonetized notes of more than Rs. 44 crores in accounts of various persons, including his own, and thereafter transferring it through RTGS into accounts of various other persons at Delhi and Kolkata, mostly in fictitious accounts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nowhere involved in the entire episode as it was through the accounts of other persons namely Shashi Kumar and Rajesh Kumar in whose accounts huge amounts of cash were deposited post demonetization and from there, through RTGS, the amounts were transferred into various other accounts. It was submitted that on the basis of complaint lodged by Shashi Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, that fraud had been committed in their accounts, as without having made any cash deposits, transactions of heavy amounts were reflected in their accounts, police cases were registered and thereafter the Enforcement Directorate came into the picture leading to the present case. It was submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner to such heavy cash deposits and the petitioner himself is the Managing Director of MDI Cotton Mills Private Limited located at Manpur in Gaya and his turn over is in crores and only his money was being deposited in his accounts and the same have also been shown in the Income Tax returns. Learned counsel submitted that as per the allegation, the petitioner after depositing the cash got the same transferred through RTGS to various accounts at the dictate of Dhiraj Jain and Niraj Jain, who were based in Delhi. Learned counsel submitted that Dhiraj Jain has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6262 of 2019 vide order dated 19.09.2019. It was submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have transferred the money at the behest of Dhiraj Jain and he has been granted bail and, thus, the petitioner also is entitled to such indulgence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has given his statement to the authorities and all his papers are presently in the custody of the Special Court and, thus, there cannot be any tampering by him. It was further submitted that the petitioner having a running mill, there was no chances of him absconding. Learned counsel submitted that only on presumption and the statement of the Bank officials, who have tried to falsely implicate the petitioner, he has been made accused. Learned counsel contended that Shashi Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, who have filed cases that there was fraud committed in their accounts have not taken the name of the petitioner and further that the petitioner has no concern with those persons and, thus, could not have deposited such money as it was not in his knowledge with regard to accounts maintained by them. Learned counsel submitted that because the petitioner has good business and there is heavy transaction in his account, he has been made a scapegoat by the authorities to hide their misconduct without the petitioner being involved in such transactions. Learned counsel further submitted that though there is restriction under Section 45 of the Act but the same does not bar the Court from considering and granting bail if the Court is satisfied that the petitioner may be innocent and that there is no chance of