JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, the opposite party.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case No.1003 of 2021 in ECIR No.ECIR/01/LKZO/2018 dated 18.02.2018, under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station - Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow.

3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed and the parties have requested that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally.

4. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is a retired Chief Engineer. One FIR was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI") on 30.11.2017 at RC-26A/2017 against so many persons including the present applicant. The CBI has filed charge sheet against so many persons but no charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant as nothing incriminating has been found against him by the CBI.

5. As per Sri Chakravarty, the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as "E.D.") lodged one ECIR No.01/LKZO/2018 on 18.02.2018 pursuant to the FIR and investigation so carried out by the CBI in the year 2017. In such complaint, E.D. investigated the aspect relating to money laundering against all persons either have been charge sheeted by the CBI or have not been charge sheeted by the CBI. However, nothing incriminating has been received from the possession of the present applicant and nothing incriminating was found by the CBI against the present applicant, even then the E.D. summoned the present applicant couple of times for recording his statement and producing material. Specific recital to this effect has been given in para-16 of the application wherein the applicant has indicated the dates when the applicant appeared before the investigating agency i.e. E.D. and recorded his statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA, 2002") i.e. 25.05.2018, 07.06.2018, 26.06.2018, 23.07.2018 and 19.06.2019. Sri Chakravarty has submitted that the E.D. has recorded statements of various persons including one Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor, on various dates i.e. 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019. As per E.D., the said Contractor Sri Amit Yadav has stated in his statement dated 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019 that he (Sri Amit Yadav) had withdrawn a sum of Rs.15 lakh in cash through his "self cheque" and he paid this amount to the present applicant. Sri Chakravarty has submitted that except the aforesaid statement of Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor, E.D. is having no material to suggest that there was any involvement of the present applicant in the instant matter. Sri Chakravarty has further submitted that there was no eye witness to say that the aforesaid amount of Rs.15 lakh has been given to the present applicant by Sri Amit Yadav. Besides, after the aforesaid statement of Sri Amit Yadav being recorded by the E.D. on 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019, the present applicant was summoned to record his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on 19.06.2019, but the present applicant has not been confronted with such statement of Sri Amit Yadav and no question relating to such alleged transaction has been asked from the present applicant. Therefore, that material i.e. the statement of Sri Amit Yadav dated 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019 may not, prima facie, be treated as sufficient material to suggest that such amount has been withdrawn by Sri Yadav to make payment the same to the present applicant. As per Sri Chakravarty, the Bank Accounts etc. of the present applicant have been investigated by the E.D. and the aforesaid allegation of Sri Yadav has not been corroborated. The applicant has not been named as an accused in the charge sheet arising out of the FIR No.RC-26A/20