Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.—This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 02 of 2018 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/05/2016 dated 18.07.2018 instituted for offences punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA”).

2. Short fact of the case is that one Gaya Civil Line P.S. Case No. 339 of 2016 was instituted on the complaint of one Sri Shashi Kumar alleging regarding misutilization of the Bank Account of his brother and his firm by the Bank Officials as huge cash amount was deposited and transferred to another accounts without their knowledge. Similarly, an F.I.R., vide Gaya P.S. Case No. 340 of 2016, was instituted by one Sri Rajesh Kumar regarding misutilization of his and his wife's Bank Account by the Bank Officials as huge cash amount was deposited and transferred to another accounts without their knowledge. The aforesaid FIRs were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on the basis of letter of Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Unit, Patna, ECIR No. PTZO/05/2016 dated 26.12.2016 in connection with aforesaid two FIRs. was registered and investigation was initiated.

3. From perusal of account statement of M/s Shiva Agro Enterprises (firm of the Informant namely Shashi Kumar of Gaya Civil Line P.S. Case No. 339 of 2016), it revealed that Rs. 86,00,000/- was deposited in cash on 12.11.2016 and an amount of Rs. 76,20,000/- was transferred in the Bank Account of M/s Maa Tara Agency on 12.11.2016 itself and from the account statement of the bank account of Sri Rajnish Kumar (brother of the Informant namely Shashi Kumar of Gaya Civil Line P.S. Case No. 339 of 2016), it revealed that Rs. 86,00,000/- was deposited in cash on 12.11.2016 and Rs. 70,00,000/- was transferred in the bank account of M/s Maa Tara Agency on 12.11.2016 itself. On aforesaid facts, it is alleged that an amount of Rs. 146.20 Lacs alleged to be proceeds of crime was transferred in the bank account of M/s Maa Tara Agency, Muzaffarpur and since petitioner is proprietor of the agency, summon under Section 50 of the PMLA was issued to him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of sugar and in course of same, he negotiated for purchase of one rack of sugar in the month of October 2016 vide Provisional Sale Contract dated 27.10.2016, which was finalized on 03.11.2016. The said rack reached at Fatuha on 14.11.2016. One Pawan Kumar Jain and Chakresh Jain approached him to purchase 8200 bags of sugar, each bag containing 50 Kg. of sugar, at the rate of Rs. 3810/- per quintal on 11.11.2016 and it was promised by said Pawan Kumar Jain and Chakresh Jain that payment would be made to the petitioner on 12.11.2016 in two parts - vide Rs. 76.20 Lacs and Rs. 70.00 Lacs through RTGS. When the petitioner learnt that the amounts were deposited from two different bank accounts not belonging to Sri Pawan Kumar Jain and Sri Chakresh Jain, the petitioner after writing letters to them got instituted an FIR bearing Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 134 of 2017 dated 01.03.2017.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 prov