The main legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the subsequent amendments, as well as the importance of speedy trial and the right to bail.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with ECIR No.BSZO/04/2014 registered under Section 3 read with Sections 70(1) and 70(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PML Act' for brevity) pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Khurda, has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, has been summarized, as follows:

i. In Kharvel Nagar PS Case No.44 dated 07.02.2013, charge sheet dated 10.07.2013 under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the I.P.C. was filed and a second charge-sheet dated 28.07.2013 of the same P.S. but different P.S. Case No.145 dated 27.5.2013 was filed before the jurisdictional Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar against the Petitioner and others of Artha Tatwa Group. Petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2013 and since then he is in custody. This investigation emerged from the case wherein ED has lodged the complaint.

ii. The CBI, pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, took over the said investigations and filed a charge-sheet dated 11.12.2014 against the Petitioner and others under Sections 120B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 467, 471, 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCMCSB Act' for brevity) before the learned Special C.J.M., CBI, Bhubaneswar. On 07.01.2015, ED took the Petitioner to custody and recorded his statement under Section 50 of the PML Act and the said recording continued till 15.01.2015. Learned Sessions Judge, Khurda, upon an application/ Complaint case filed by ED, took cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 on 01.11.2016 and was pleased to issue summons to the Petitioner and others vide order dated 06.12.2016.

iii. Learned Special C.J.M., Bhubaneswar convicted the Petitioner in connection with the aforesaid CBI case and awarded the sentence for 7 years imprisonment with a further direction to deposit the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.250 Crore. Learned Sessions Judge, dealing with ED case, was pleased to issue production warrant on 13.09.2017. In the meantime, the Petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 03.04.2018 through his Advocate pursuant to the summons issued on 06.12.2016 by ED. Even when the counsel appeared in terms of earlier summons, learned Sessions Judge, Khurda vide order dated 20.06.2018 was pleased to remand the Petitioner to custody. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought bail which was got rejected vide order dated 10.12.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in Crl. Misc (PMLAJ) Case No.34/16. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has filed the instant bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that relief of bail was declined by the learned Sessions Judge by placing reliance on Section 45 of PML Act and the twin conditions contained therein even though the said conditions were declared unconstitutional and were accordingly struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed manifest error one after the other, namely, the issuance of production warrant and execution thereof on 20.06.2018 especially when the Petitioner, pursuant to the summons, appeared before the Court through his counsel on 03.04.2018. There was no compelling necessity for the issuance of the production warrant and even if there was one, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have released him on bail by virtue of Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, if the Petitioner was in custody in terms of production warrant issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C., and not in terms of Section 19 of PML Act, it was the duty of the court concerned to release him on bail with