Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.—This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 07 of 2018 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/02/2016 dated 28.08.2016 instituted for offences punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA”).

2. According to the prosecution, after preliminary inquiry against these petitioners and other co-accused persons who have found to have committed the offence of Section 3 of the PMLA, the complaint was filed on F.I.R. bearing no.77/2013 dated 04.05.2013 registered initially by P.S. Giriyak, Nalanda Bihar against co-accused Dinesh Prasad Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Pawapuri Rice Mill under Sections 406, 406, 407, 409 & 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that co-accused Dinesh Prasad Gupta, on behalf of M/s Pawapuri Rice Mills had received total 1,90,381.31 quintals of paddy as per agreement executed with Bihar State Food & Supplies Corporation Ltd. and M/s Pawapuri Rice Mills had to deposit 1,29,459.17 quintals of rice (68% of Paddy received) to the Food Corporation of India but he could deposit only 75293.39 quintals of rice. Hence, the suspect firm had misappropriated 54,165.70 quintals rice valued at Rs. 10,15,94,961/- (Rs.Ten Crore Fifteen lacs Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty One only) at the rate of Rs.1875.63 per quintals. Therefore, charge-sheet no.243/2013 dated 31.12.2013 was filed against co-accused Dinesh Prasad Gupta & others and they have been charged for offences of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The amount of loss caused to the Sate exchequer is the proceeds of crime generated by the accused from the schedule offence for which, a case of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, has been registered against them.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, petitioner no.1 has been making investment in properties since 2012 out of his personal income, whereas petitioner no. 2 is engaged in the business of running Dharmkanta and trading of food grains. As the petitioners are formal partners in M/s. Pawapuri Rice Mill, they had no role in the business or any financial decisions related to the alleged misappropriation. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 appeared before the concerned authorities on 06.03.2018 and 19.03.2018, providing statements under Section 50 of the PMLA in response to summons from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and petitioner no. 2 appeared on 19.03.2018, before the ED during the Investigation. The ED has already submitted charge-sheet in form of Complaint u/s 44 of the PMLA giving rise to Complaint No. 07 of 2018 and the petitioner no. 1 has been made named as accused no. 4, whereas petitioner no. 2 is named as accused no. 5 in the said complaint. The investigation by the ED has now been completed and the learned Special Court-cum-Sessions Court (PMLA), Patna has taken cognizance under Section 3 of PMLA punishable under Section 4 of PMLA against all the named accused including these petitioners and now the petitioners are only required to face trial.

4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 (3) PLJR (SC) 119 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, the Special Court is seized of the matter and the ED and other authorities named in Section 19 of the PMLA cannot exercise the power of arrest of the accused shown in the complaint. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that once complaint is filed, it will be governed by Section 200 to 205 of Cr.P.C. as none of the said provisions are inconsistent with any of the