Once cognizance is taken under the PMLA, the Special Court lacks jurisdiction to arrest the accused, and bail matters must align with the Criminal Procedure Code provisions.

JUDGMENT :

PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 08 of 2022, arising out of ECIR/19/Pat/2012, instituted for offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA”).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Charge Sheet No.70/2012 dated 27.07.2012 in FIR No.54/2010 dated 21.07.2010 was filed before the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna and the petitioner namely Baidyanath Das was one of the charge-sheeted accused person. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that accused person namely K. Senthil Kumar, IAS (Batch-96), the then Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation, in collusion with Baidyanath Das, the then Additional Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation and others, caused wrongful loss of Rs.8,76,81,110/- to the Patna Municipal Corporation and thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 471, 120B of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly. ECIR/19/PAT/2012 was registered for the purpose of investigation under PMLA and prevent money laundering. It is further alleged that during the tenure of K Senthil Kumar, IAS, in connivance with other officers has taken illegal gratification from builder, mafia, developers, private suppliers and service providers and caused huge loss to PMC. The major revenue losses were caused on account of legal statutory approval of maps for construction of 130 multi-storied apartments to the tune of Rs. 7,46,66,669/ and of legal allotment of hoardings of five advertisement agencies to the tune of Rs.40,38,133/-. It is further alleged that under the influence of Hotel Lobby of Patna, accused K. Senthil Kumar caused revenue loss of Rs.64,41,225/- on account of lesser collection of holding tax from five hotels of Patna and other irregularities causing loss of Rs. 25 lakhs to Patna Municipal Corporation. It is further alleged that Baidyanath Das (petitioner), in collation with main accused K. Senthil Kumar and other officials of PMC, has violated the financial rule and regulation of Patna Municipal Corporation like two-way communication, street light, high-mast light and diesel pump set for solid waste management, construction of slaughter house by allocation of work to the favoured entities. It is further alleged that Baidyanath Das (petitioner) had assisted K Senthil Kumar in according approval of maps for different projects in direct violation of existing rules and regulations resulting in huge loss to government exchequer and generation of proceeds of crime.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is a Retired Additional Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation and the entire allegations of conspiracy, collusion and assistance against this petitioner is false, fabricated and imaginary. Petitioner has got no concern with the alleged financial irregularity and he does not know about the technicalities of Map Planning which is the exclusive work of the Engineers and ultimate authority is the Commissioner to pass or reject the Map. The file of Map Planning moves from clerk to J.E.. Executive Engineer and then to the Additional Commissioner for onward transmission to the Commissioner and the petitioner is just like a Post Office, who simply forwards the file of Map Planning to the Commissioner for final approval and is not responsible in any violation in Map Plan. He further submits that petitioner was only concerned to verify fixed rate of amount per square feet from the advertisers, which is fix