ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr Mitesh Amin with learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia and learned advocate Mr. Neel Kanabar appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the respondent No.2.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being File No. ECIR/STSZO/04/2025 registered with Ahmedabad Zonal Office, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 202 (hereinafter referred to as “PML Act”)

4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Amin on behalf of the applicant would submit that the present applicant has been arraigned as a accused in connection FIR being C.R. No.11210005241151 of 2024 registered with Athwa Police Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 338, 336(2), 336(3), 340, 318(4), 319(), 61(2) of the BNS Act and has been arrested in connection with the said offence on 17.11.2024. Learned senior advocate would submit that while the allegation in the said offence being that the accused therein, were laundering money through the medium of mule accounts, and whereas it is submitted that after filing of the FIR, respondent No.2 had filed ECIR No.4 of 2025 against the accused under the provisions of the PMLA Act and whereas such an ECIR has been registered on 26.03.2025. It is further submitted by learned senior advocate that the present applicant was not cited as an accused in both the FIR as well as ECR and whereas the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused during the course of investigation in both the offences. Learned senior advocate would submit that the prosecution complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 – ED on 27.11.2025. Learned senior advocate would submit that as such, the present applicant, had thereafter, moved an application for the release on regular bail and in the scheduled offence and whereas vide and order dated 06.02.2026, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.2009 of 2026, had enlarged the present applicant on regular bail. Learned senior advocate would submit that the role attributed to the present applicant, as per the prosecution complaint being that the present applicant, was an associate, who had indulged in the activity of laundering of money on behalf of co-accused, more particularly, by converting the proceeds of crime into USDT/Cryptocurrency for the purpose of commission. Learned senior advocate would submit that since the charge-sheet has been filed in the scheduled offence and whereas the present applicant has been enlarged on bail in the scheduled offence and whereas since prosecution complaint has been filed in so far as in the present complaint is concerned, no purpose would be served by not releasing the present applicant, more particularly, by keeping the present applicant in judicial custody. Learned advocate would under such circumstances, request that this Court may release the present applicant on regular bail.

5. As against the same, the present application has been vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for respondent No.2. Learned advocate Mr. Kanani would at the outset, draw the attention of this Court to Section 45 of the PML Act and would submit that the said provision bars grant of bail unless the twin conditions as per Section 45 are fulfilled and whereas, learned advocate would submit that the 2nd condition, not being fulfilled in the instance case, this Court may not enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Learned advocate would submit that this Court, as per Section 4