IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions imposed for granting anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act should be just, efficacious, and not excessive to frustrate the object of grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Vinayak Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad imposing six conditions. The applicant is aggrieved by the condition No. 1,imposed upon her while granting anticipatory bail to her, which is as follows:-

"That the applicant/accused will deposit the said amount of Rs. 2.5 crore along with 10% simple interest for every year from the date of receipt of said amount i.e. 25.09.2018, in the court within one month of passing of this order."

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to set aside the condition No. 1 imposed by the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad in anticipatory bail order dated 18.01.2024 of the applicant, arising out of ECIR No. ECIR/LKZO/05/2019 under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

4. On 18.03.2024, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court has passed the following order:-

"1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant is aggrieved by condition No.1 of the order dated 18.01.2024, whereby the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad, while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant has directed that the applicant/ accused will deposit the amount of Rs. 2.5 Crore along with 10% simple interest for every year from the date of receipt of the said amount i.e. 25.09.2018 in the court within one month.

2. The main substratum of argument of Mr. Vinayak Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant, is that after culmination of investigation, qua the applicant Smt. Meena Anand, the third supplementary complaint dated 18.09.2023 has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The account of the applicant, in which a sum of Rs. 2.5 Crore was credited from the account of M/s. Independent T.V. Limited on 25.09.2018 has neither been seized nor any property of the applicant has been attached during investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.

2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 779 and Bimla Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar and Others passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 834835 of 2023 submits that the concerned court while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot impose the condition of deposit of Rs. 2.5 Crore along with 10% simple interest for every year from the date of receipt of the said amount.

2.2. Much emphasis has been given by contending that recovery of the said amount can only be done in accordance with due process of law provided under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

3. On putting query with regard to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Enforcement Directorate, could not give satisfactory reply. He prays for and is allowed three days' time to seek specific instructions in the matter particularly with regard to condition no.1 of the bail order dated 18.01.2024 of the applicant.

4. Put up this case as fresh on 21.03.2024."

5. Today on the matter being taken up, Mr. Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, upon instructions, submits that during investigation, neither the account of the applicant was seized nor the property of the applicant was attached. Even the submissions made on behalf of the applicant that recovery of the said amount can onlybe done in accordance with due process of law provided under Prevention of Money Laundering Act has also not been denied by the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

6. In reply learned counsel for the applican