P a g e 1 | 2 Item No. 84 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL AB No. 8 of 2021 Thounaojam Ibobi Singh … Petitioner - Versus - The Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU O R D E R 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI appearing for the respondents submits that in the FIR case, there are 3 (three) accused; out of that 2 (two) had already been released on bail and against the release order of the other 2 (two) accused, the respondents filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said SLP was dismissed confirming the release order passed by this Court. On perusal of the case docket, the FIR was registered in the year 2021 and the present A.B. case has been pending before this Court since 22.01.2021. It was admitted by both parties that the authorities are yet to file charge sheet against the 3 (three) accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the dragging the present case for longer period is not required. Accordingly, the interim order dated 28.01.2021 is made absolute. KHOIROM BIPINCHAN DRA SINGH Digitally signed by KHOIROM BIPINCHANDRA SINGH Date: 2025.03.07 15:02:46 +05'30' P a g e 2 | 2 The petitioner is directed to comply with the direction made in the order dated 28.01.2021 i.e. para No. 4 which is extracted herein below: “[4] After a gap of almost a year, the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India issued a summon notice dated 11.01.2021 requiring the petitioner to appear before it on 28.01.2021 at 10:00 a.m. i.e. today. Although this application was filed on 23.01.20224, the same is being listed before this Court only today. It has been submitted by Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in respect of such a similar proceeding initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement in respect of the then Chief Minister of Manipur, this Court vide its judgment and order dated 16.12.2020 had granted anticipatory bail even though no such summon was issued in respect of him and only on the basis of the report published in the newspaper. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Directorate of has issued summon for the offences as stated herein above. It has been submitted by Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG that in terms of Section 45 of the Money Laundering Act, no bail can be granted before an opportunity being granted to the authority for opposing it. With the above direction, the present petition is disposed of. If during the course of investigation, new facts arise and if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions made in the interim order dated 28.02.2021, the respondents can approach before this Court for vacation of this Court’s order. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for both parties. JUDGE Bipin