JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant 2nd petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release on regular bail, in COMA 13 of 2017 dated 01.7.2017 titled as "Enforcement Directorate Vs. Davinder Singh Nirwal and others" arising out of ECIR/02/JLZO/2013 dated 22.01.2016, registered under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after to be referred as " PMLA Act").

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner is hardly literate and is only 3rd standard pass, he verified from the revenue authorities as to which of his properties were attached by the respondent department and came to know that two properties had no lien or charge by the Enforcement Directorate in the revenue records.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contends that because of the financial crisis, since, the whole of the family of the petitioner was involved on account of proceedings under the PML A Act, therefore, the petitioner disposed of part of the above two properties.

4. Learned senior counsel of the petitioner further contends that the action of the petitioner, in executing the sale deeds was absolutely ill-conceived, imprudent and careless. The petitioner in his foolish wisdom on the presumption that there is no attachment over these properties, the petitioner sold the two properties and had no mens rea nor any criminal mal-intention to do so.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the petitioner in disposing of the above two properties, though is fully ill-conceived, imprudent and careless, but at the same time, it cannot be construed as a willful and deliberate violation on his part. He further contends that the petitioner had carried out the sale under an erroneous impression. He contends that he has already filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 94 of 2021 (Annexure P-5) in the Court of Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, for declaration with respect to two properties sold by him, as null and void.

6. Per contra, Mr. Moudgil, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/ED while referring to the reply contends that the petitioner was fully aware regarding the attachment of his properties, as formal provisional attachment orders were passed and he violated the terms and conditions of the bail order dated 28.02.2017. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for regular bail.

7. The case of the petitioner is that he is aged about 61 years and has studied only till Class 3rd from a Government School. He is an agriculturist by profession and his family inter alia comprises of his wife and three children i.e. one daughter and two sons. On 25.03.2013, ECIR No. 02/JLZO/2013 was registered by the Respondent Department on the basis of FIR No. 45 dated 3.03.2013 registered under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, Sections 420, 467 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, registered at PS. Fatehgarh Sahib.

8. Thereafter, FIR No. 92 dated 3.6.2014 was registered U/s 21, 22, 25, 25-A, 27, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act at PS. Passiana, District Patiala. During the investigations under PMLA, the said FIR No. 92 as well as 7 other FIRs were taken up together as one composite case for investigation under the PMLA by the Respondent Department on the premise that some of the accused in the said FIR's were common and alleged transactions were interconnected.

9. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he is neither an accused nor is in any way involved with the afore-stated FIRs. On 7.7.2014 & 21.9.2015, petitioner was also called by the ED in terms of Section 50 of PMLA and his statements were duly recorded. In the 3rd Supplementary Complaint filed by the ED on 22.1.2016, petitioner, his son Khushant Gaba and his wife Smt. Sudesh Rani were arraigned as accused No. 9, 10 and 12 respectively. The petitioner is not an accused in any of th