Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 01 of 2017, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/02/2014 dated 07.01.2014, 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 on Shri Sadhu Saran Gupta (father of the petitioner) by committing offences as scheduled under PMLA has acquired property worth Rs.1,58,88,846/- in his name, in the name of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi and his son Shri Rajesh Kumar (petitioner), from the illgotten money. The investigations have revealed that Rajesh Kumar (petitioner) has been directly involved in a process/activity connected with proceeds of crime as he has knowingly assisted Sadhu Saran Gupta and became a party to transactions connected with proceeds of crime by holding part of the proceeds of crime in his own and hence, committed the offence of money laundering, as defined under section 3 of the PMLA, punishable under section 4 of the PMLA 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case only on suspicion and being son of co-accused Sadhu Saran Gupta. He further submits that during investigation, notice under Section 50 of PMLA was issued to the petitioner and pursuant to that notice, petitioner appeared before the Directorate of Enforcement (for short “E.D.”) on several occasions and submitted relevant papers in support of his defence and made statement in respect of the allegation made in the complaint. The E.D. recorded the statement of the petitioner and collected papers with regard to the income of the petitioner. Though, petitioner submitted all relevant documents relating to his separate establishment in Kolkata (W.B.) since the year 2011, but the E.D. has fixed collective collaboration with coaccused Sadhu Saran Gupta, who happens to be father of the petitioner and without considering the materials and documents submitted by this petitioner, this petitioner and his mother have also been made accused in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during investigation, petitioner fully cooperated with the investigating agency and appeared with all relevant documents before the authority as and when required. The mother of petitioner, Shanti Devi is a kidney patient and for her proper treatment, the petitioner deposited cash in bank account of Sadhu Saran Gupta and this score alone, the petitioner has been made an accused in this case although petitioner explained all these things in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA and also submitted respective documents. He next submits that during investigation, the Investigating agency scrutinized the bank account in the name of M/s Shanti Enterprises, which revealed credits from M/s Kuber Trading New Delhi, M/s Om Agro Raipur, Shree Pawan Kumar, Lakhisarai and the investigation agency sent verification letters for genuineness of transactions which was returned back by postal authorities with remarks not known after which, the agency went silent on these non-existent firms, who credited the aforesaid Bank account although these firms are existent and genuine and all credit transactions are valid in favour of M/s Shanti Enterprises. For the Assessment year 2010-2011 to 2015-2016, value of untainted property was challenged by the mother of the petitioner namely Shanti Devi before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhagalpur and after considering the fact the appellate authority passed the order in favour of the mother of the petitioner (copy of order is annexed as Annexure P/3 series to this bail application). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no concern with the purchase of untainted property by Sadhu Saran Gupta and Shanti Devi, which is evident in the complaint petition. Lastly,