JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Complainant Case (PMLA) Case No.10 of 2022 for commission of offence Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (In short “PMLA”) which is punishable Under Section 4 PMLA pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

2. An overview of the facts involved in this case are on 02.10.2022, one FIR was registered against the Petitioner and others vide Khandagiri PS Case No. 496 of 2022 for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 341 / 328 / 324 / 354-C/ 370 /386 /387/ 388/389/419/420/465/506/120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ), 1860 and Under Section 66 -E/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(In short the “IT Act”), but before registration of this case, another case was also registered against the co-accused person for similar offences. In the FIR against the Petitioner and others, the Petitioner and other co-accused person had extorted crores of Rupees from different rich people by blackmailing them to get their video footage containing objectionable and inappropriate photographs viral. The aforesaid case was investigated into by the local police, but in the course of investigation, the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar claiming the offences alleged against the Petitioner and others to be scheduled offences as defined Under Section 2 (1y) of the PMLA instituted a complaint against the Petitioner and others before the special Court under PMLA, Bhubaneswar for commission of offence U/S. 3 of PMLA which is punishable U/S. 4 of PMLA. It is stated in the complaint that soon after registration of the aforesaid police case, PMLA Case No.10 of 2022 was recorded against the Petitioner and others for commission of aforesaid offence under PMLA and the matter was investigated into by ED. It is also alleged in the complaint that the Petitioner and others had generated illegal income of Crores of Rupees through extortion by way of honey trapping rich and influential people and making their nude videos and threatening as well as blackmailing them for lodging false police cases and getting their nude videos viral in social media and, thereby, the income of the Petitioner and others are proceeds of crime as defined Under (1)(u) of the PMLA. This is how the complaint against the Petitioner and others came to be instituted for commission of offences Under Sections 3 /4 of PMLA.

3. Heard, Mr.J.Pal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.Agrawal, learned counsel for the ED extensively. In support of their individual contentions, learned counsels for both the parties have filed short written notes of submission by relying upon the number of decisions, which would be discussed if found relevant in subsequent paragraph. While arguing on merit, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also urged the ground of sickness of the Petitioner to grant him bail by extending the benefit of proviso appended to the mandatory provision of Section 45 (1) of the PMLA.

4. Undeniably, the provisions as to bail are founded on the philosophy of protecting the most precious individual liberty of a person which is guaranteed under Article 21 of our sacred Constitution, but grant or refusal of bail to a person accused of offence is the discretion of the Court, however, such discretion should not be arbitrary or whimsical. Article 21 of the Constitution of India always reminds that the personal liberty is paramount and sacrosanct and no person shall be deprived of his personal