ORDER

By this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant/accused in Special Trial (PMLA) No.07 of 2021 dated 01.11.2021 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/08/2014 dated 13.05.2014 and ECIR No. PTZO/07/2021 dated 13.09.2021 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, Patna for the offences punishable under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 and Paragraph 1 of Part “A” of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PLMA for the sake of convenience), is seeking his release on bail during pencendy of the trial.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/ accused at sufficient length of time. By taking me through the predicate offences leading to the registration of both the ECIR, it is argued that all the three schedule offences/ predicate offences vide FIR Nos. 30 of 2013, 52 of 2013 and 311 of 2011 have ultimately yielded in acquittal of the applicant/accused by the competent criminal court. In fact the applicant is a reputed Builder, who has constructed approximately 300 flats and the commercial dispute ultimately arose in respect of few of those flats which subsequently culminated into registration of the criminal cases due to filing of the FIR's. All those criminal cases resulted in acquittal of the applicant/accused. The commercial dispute were compromised between the parties by either return of the deposits or registration of the property after receipt of the balance amount of consideration.

3. It is further argued by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant/accused that in respect of FIR Nos. 30/2013, 52/2013 and 311/2011, there is no investigation under the PLMA and there cannot be any proceeds of crime in respect of those three offences which ultimately yielded in acquittal of the applicant even prior to his arrest in the subject criminal case under the PLMA. On 07.09.2021 when the applicant came to be arrested, no schedule offence existed and only ECIR was registered vide ECIR No. PTZO 08/2014 on 13.05.2014. Therefore, arrest of the applicant on 07.09.2021 was illegal. It is further argued that post amendment of Section 24 in 2013, Section 24 of the PLMA is applicable only after framing of charges and therefore, arrest of the applicant on 07.09.2021 is illegal.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the last predicate offence vide FIR No. 316 of 2019 dated 21.05.2014 which has yielded in registration of the ECIR No. PTZO/07/2021 dated 13.09.2021, was registered on account of private commercial dispute regarding wrong payment of salary to the workers of some other company and the first informant had intentionally ignored payments made by the applicant under the directions of this Court in various proceedings.

5. According to the learned Senior counsel, immovable properties of the value of Rs. 1,67,29,640/- and Rs.94,90,970/- at Ranchi belonging to the applicant came to be attached illegally. With this, it is further argued that on the basis of the various judicial pronouncement, after Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and Ors reported in MANU/SC/1480/2017, twin limitations contained in Section 45(1) of the PLMA are held to be unconstitutional and therefore, now the cases under the PLMA are to be decided without application of the twin conditions contained in that Section. As such on the basis of several judicial pronouncement including that in the matter of Ahilya Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors reported in MANU/BH/0245/2020, the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. As against this, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the application by contending that the applicant is habitual offender and many cases have been lodged against him in various police stations in Bihar including that of cheating, fraud, dishonestly, grabbing public money etc. The applicant is guilty of the offence of money laundering under the PLMA and the twi