Order : Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. The applicant has preferred the instant bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS' for short) seeking grant of bail in connection with ECIR RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Zonal Office (ED), for the offences under Sections 03 and 04 of the PMLA, 2002. FACTUAL ASPECTS : 2 . The present bail applicant is the first application being preferred by the applicant seeking his release on bail and no other application of similar nature is either pending adjudication before this Court or any subordinate court. Previous, the applicant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Special Court (PMLA) Raipur by filing application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 and Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 20.06.2025. 3. The applicant was apprehended on 15.01.2025 by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office in connection with the ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 registered for the alleged contraventions under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The applicant is a person of clean antecedents and has never been convicted of any offence prior to the instant case. However, he has been implicated in FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024, which is already under investigation. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, a) it is alleged that during the period from 2019 to 2002, a large scale syndicate was operating in the State of Chhattisgarh systematically involved in the manufacture and sale of illegal liquor through licensed government shops, thereby generating unlawful commissions from the distillers. b) It is further alleged that the operations of the said syndicate resulted in the generation of huge amounts of illicit funds, which were distributed amongst its members and also utilized to bribe high ranking political and administrative functionaries. c) The specific role attributed to the applicant is that during the yer 2019 to 2023 while serving as the Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh, he allegedly exercised complete control over the functioning of the Excise Department and played a vital role in the introduction of FL-10A licensing policy. c) The specific role attributed to the applicant is that during the yer 2019 to 2023 while serving as the Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh, he allegedly exercised complete control over the functioning of the Excise Department and played a vital role in the introduction of FL-10A licensing policy. d) It is further alleged that despite being fully aware of the irregularities and illegalities n the Department, the applicant attempted to shift the entire blame upon officers, namely Arunpati Tripathi (then Managing Director, CSMCL) and Mr. Niranjan Das (then Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh). e) It is further alleged that the applicant received an amount of Rs. 2 crores per month from the illegal earning of the alleged liquor syndicate and is in possession of the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 72 crores. Hence the present bail application is being filed on the following amongst, other grounds. GROUNDS URGED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT 5. Counsel for the applicant has urged the following grounds: 1. False implication and Political Vendetta : It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to extraneous political considerations. The allegations levelled against him are vague, indiscriminate and based solely on statements of co-accused and prosecution witnesses, without any independent, cogent or credible evidence directly linking the applicant with the alleged offence. 2. Registration of the present ECIR is an abused of process of law : Firstly, the present ECIR has been registered on the basis of Predict FIR No. 04.2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (AB) , which itself was instituted merely pursuant to information shared by the non-applicant under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002. Secondly, the Enforcement Directorate cannot, in law, assume the role of a complainant for the purpose of causing registration of a predicate offence. Such action is not envisaged within the statutory framework of the PMLA, 2002 and if permitted would render the very concept of a “scheduled offence” negatory. Thirdly, the present ECIR is the second in relation to the alleged “Liquor Scam” and appears to have ben registered only with the intent of circumventing the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Apex Court in WP (Crl.) NO. 153/2023 Yash Tuteja and Another Vs. Thirdly, the present ECIR is the second in relation to the alleged “Liquor Scam” and appears to have ben registered only with the intent of circumventing the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Apex Court in WP (Crl.) NO. 153/2023 Yash Tuteja and Another Vs. Union of India and Other an connected matters wherein the Prosecution Complaint filed in ECIR No. RPZO/11/2022 was quashed on the ground that there existed no scheduled offence. 3. No recovery of Direct Evidence : He next contended that there is no recovery of any alleged “proceeds of crime” made from the possession of the applicant. The prosecution case is primarily based on conjectures, surmises and documentary inferences . It is settled law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 4. Filing of Charge sheet and completion of investigation : It is contended that the charge sheet in the predicate offence (FIR No. 04/2024) has already been filed before the Special Court (PC Act), Raipur on 30.06.2025. Likewise, in the PMLA proceedings, the 3 rd Supplementary Prosecution Complaint has also been filed on 12.03.2025. Therefore the investigation is substantially complete and the applicant’s further custodial detention serves no fruitful purpose. 5. Bail Jurisprudence and the Right to Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution: He contended that the applicant has been in custody since 15.01.2025 and has undergone prolonged incarceration without trial. It is trite law, reiterated by the Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1979 SC 1369 ) , that the right to speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21. Pre-trial detention cannot be punitive in nature. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. The jurisprudence on bail, evolved by the Apex Court, consistently holds that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. He has placed his reliance upon the matter of Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240 , wherein the Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty must be justified by compelling reasons and bail should ordinarily be granted. In Dataram Sing Vs. He has placed his reliance upon the matter of Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240 , wherein the Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty must be justified by compelling reasons and bail should ordinarily be granted. In Dataram Sing Vs. State of State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22 , it is observed that liberty is a precious constitutional value and bail should not be denied as a matter of punishment before conviction. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified as a measure of deterrence or punishment, particularly, when the accused is not likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 6. No Criminal Antecedents: It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that except for the present politically motivated cases, the applicant has no past criminal antecedents. He has an unblemished public record, having served in constitutional and ministerial capacities with dignity. 7. Absence of necessity for the applicant’s arrest : The applicant has at all times extended full cooperation with the investigation. In December 2024, during the search and seizure conducted at his residence, he cooperated fully. He has further complied with all the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA. Despite the fact that the ECIR was registered as far back as April 2024 and a Prosecution Complaint was filed on 19.06.2024 followed by two Supplementary prosecution Complaints dated 30.08.2024, the applicant was not arrested at any stage during this period. This clearly demonstrates that there was no compelling necessity to curtail the applicant's liberty by effecting his arrest at a belated stage. The applicant has fully cooperated in the investigation at all stages. All requisite documents and explanations were fully furnished whenever called upon by the Investigating Authorities. There is no apprehension that the applicant will either tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. The Apex Court has consistently held that arrest is not to be effected in a routine manner, particularly when the accused has cooperated with the investigation. In the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SC 51, it has been held that arrest must not be mechanical; bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Similarly, in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it has been held that arrest should be made only when absolutely necessary; non-arrest is the norm where the accused is cooperating. Similarly, in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it has been held that arrest should be made only when absolutely necessary; non-arrest is the norm where the accused is cooperating. In the matter of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SC 24, it was observed that in economic offences under PMLA, arrest must satisfy the “necessity” test and custodial interrogation is not warranted where cooperation is extended. 8. Settled Principles Governing Bail : The Apex Court in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 has categorically held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused during trial and that detention should not be extended as a measure of punishment. In the present case, the applicant satisfies all the parameters for grant of bail. Applying these settled principles, the applicant’s arrest in the present case is unwarranted and disproportionate and hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Comparative hardship and Parity with the co-accused: Counsel for the applicant contended that the co-accused persons namely Arun Pati Tripathi, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Anil Tuteja and Arvind Singh have already been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court who are similarly placed and facing identical allegations. and the applicant cannot be subjected to harsher treatment or singled out for continued incarceration, this would offend the principle of parity and fair trial. It is a settled principle that similarly situated co-accuse cannot be discriminated against. As observed in Deepak Kumar Ratre Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 SC OnLine Chh. 40 , parity is not a matter of discretion but of judicial propriety. therefore on the principle of parity, the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. In the facts of the present case, continued incarceration of the applicant serves no legitimate purpose and would amount to grave infraction of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To sum up, the contention of the applicant inter alia is that : a) He is a public servant and a distinguished elected representative serving multiple terms in the State Legislative Assembly. b) He has not tampered with the evidence nor influenced the witnesses. c) Custodial interrogation is not required as he has been interrogated at length. d) Co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. b) He has not tampered with the evidence nor influenced the witnesses. c) Custodial interrogation is not required as he has been interrogated at length. d) Co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. e) granting bail is necessary to secure his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. A detailed in-depth and minute analysis of the materials (including witness statements and documents) is a matter for trial. At the stage of bail, the Court must not conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the merits and it should confine itself to prima facie considerations and not delve into acceptability of evidence. REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ED 6. Learned counsel for the ED opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the prohibition against a mini-trial does not mean that the court must close its eyes to material that is relevant and necessary to rule on bail. A court may and indeed must consider such material as is necessary to determine whether i) there is prima facie material linking the accused to the offence ii) there is likelihood of the accused fleeing instigation or tampering with evidence and iiii) exception features of the case warrant denial of bail under the statutory scheme. A limited focused perusal of relevant material for these limited purposes is permissible and proper. 7. In the present case, it is submitted that the ED is empowered to investigation Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. However, insofar as scheduled offences are concerned, the same must necessarily be investigated by the jurisdictions police or other competent agency. This position has been clearly elucidated by the Apex Court in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudahary (supra), wherein it was observed as under: “It is possible that in a given case after the discovery of huge volume of undisclosed property, the 298 authorized officer may be advised to send information to the jurisdictional police (under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act) for registration of a scheduled offence contemporaneously, including for further investigation in a pending case, if any. On receipt of such information, the jurisdictional police would be obliged to register the case by way of FIR if it is a cognizable offence or as a non- cognizable offence (NC case), as the case may be. On receipt of such information, the jurisdictional police would be obliged to register the case by way of FIR if it is a cognizable offence or as a non- cognizable offence (NC case), as the case may be. If the offence so reported is a scheduled offence, only in that eventuality, the property recovered by the authorised officer would partake the colour of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1) (u) of the 2002 Act, enabling him to take further action under the Act in that regard.” 8. In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that : i) The mere act of sharing information by the respondent agency under Section 66(2) of the PMLA cannot be deemed illegal or improper. It is nature of intelligence dissemination. ii) the receiving authority (here, EOW/ACB, Chhattisgarh) retains complete independent discretion to assess such information and determine whether registration of an FIR or further action is warranted. iii) Therefore, the applicant’s contention that the ED has “created” its own predicate offence is wholly misconceived. The registration of FIR No. 04/2024 is an independent act of the jurisdictional police under its statutory powers based on cognizable offences disclosed. 9. The above principle also finds supporting the decision of the constitution Bench in A.R.Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) 2 SC 500, w herein it was held that “ anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion except where the statute indicates to the contrary .” 10. Thus, the object and purpose of Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, 2002 is entirely consistent with the constitutional bench ruling,ensuring that intelligence unearthed during investigations by the ED is not wasted, but can be passed on to the competent police authority for action under the ordinary criminal law. 11. It is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking cognizance of criminal offences. Even for the most serious offence of murder,it is not disputed that a private complaint cannot only be filed but also entertained and proceeded with in accordance with law. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking cognizance of criminal offences. Even for the most serious offence of murder,it is not disputed that a private complaint cannot only be filed but also entertained and proceeded with in accordance with law. Thus the locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence , save and except where the statute creating an offence itself prescribes eligibility conditions for the complainant. In such cases, the general principle stands excluded by necessary implication. It is further submitted that the jurisdictional police station or relevant law enforcement authority is obligated to accept information shared with it and initiate the process of registered a First Information Report (FIR) provided there exists reasonable cause to believe that a cognizable offence has occurred. Int his regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 , wherein it was held : “Registration of FIR is mandatory in the information given to the police under Section 15491) of Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.” 12. Next contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the applicant has contended that the recent search conducted at the residential premises, no substantial cash amount alleged to have been received by him on a monthly basis from the purported illegal operations of the syndicate has been seized. The said contention is misleading and vehemently denied. In reply, it is submitted that: i) t he non-recovery of cash per se does not absolve the applicant since under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 the concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property itself constitutes the offence. ii) The offence under the PMLA is not restricted to physical recovery of cash; it equally covers the transactions and placement of proceeds of crime through indirect mode, including hawala channels, benami transactions and third party accounts. iii) The allegation against the applicant is not limited to cash in hand but extends to his role in enabling, facilitating and benefiting from the illegal liquor policy operations, thereby attracting the wide sweep of Section 3. 13. iii) The allegation against the applicant is not limited to cash in hand but extends to his role in enabling, facilitating and benefiting from the illegal liquor policy operations, thereby attracting the wide sweep of Section 3. 13. It is next contended that the applicant in his contention has submitted that he was not summoned for period of eight months from the date of registration of the ECIR and therefore his custodial interrogation was never warranted, is wholly misconceived and untenable. The power of arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA 2002 is not dependent upon the frequency of duration of summons issued but upon the subjective satisfaction of the authorized officer based on material in his possession that the person is guilty of an offence under the Act. 14. He submits that the timing of arrest is within the exclusive domain of the investigating agency, which is guided by the stage of investigation, availability of material and necessity to prevent destruction of evidence or tampering of witnesses. The lapse of eight months, therefore cannot be construed as an admission that custodial interrogation was unwarranted. 15. Further, the applicant’s reliance on the filing of the 3 rd supplementary prosecution complaint is misplaced. The statute itself contemplates continuing investigation under Section 44(1) (b) of the PMLA, 2002 and the mere recording that investigation regarding the role of present applicant is “complete” does not foreclose the possibility of further investigation against him or others. Thus, his custody remains justified. 16. The ED while opposing the submission advanced on behalf of the appilcant that there existed absolutely no material warranting his arrest in the present case, is emphatically denied as being wholly untenable. i) the arrest of the applicant was based on credible material and evidence collected during investigation, which revealed his active role in the laundering of proceeds of crime emanation from the predicate offence. ii) it is settled law as reiterated by the Apex court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra) that the ED is empowered to arrest a person under Section 19 of the PMLA, provided the authorized officer has reason to believe, on the basis of material in his possession that such person is guilty of an offence under the Act and the reasons are recorded in writing. iii) The requirement is not that the investigating agency must have material sufficient for conviction at the stage of arrest; rather, the law only requires that there exists prima facie material inking the accused with the laundering of proceeds of crime. iv) the contention of the applicant thus seeks to import a higher threshold than what is contemplated by the PMLA and therefore deserves outright rejection. 17. It is next submitted that so far as no cash was seized during the search proceedings at his residential premises, to this, reply would be that absence of physical cash seizure during search proceedings does not negate the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. The definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) is not confined to cash alone; it includes any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, whether or not such property is in the form of money. ii) the investigation has revealed t and the prosecution complaint dated 12.03.2025 records the active role of the applicant in committing criminal activities related to the scheduled offences and his possession use and projection of proceeds of crime. The material collected demonstrates that the applicant was a beneficiary of the syndicate’s illegal operations, thereby squarely attracting the mischief of Section 3 of the Act. iii) it is further submitted that the Apex court in Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India (2024) LiveLaw (SC) 617 has categorically held that the offence of money laundering can be established once the prosecution demonstrates: 1. the commission of a scheduled offence, 2. property derived or obtained from such criminal activity, and 3. involvement of the accused in any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. iv) The respondent Department has successfully demonstrated all the above foundational requirements in the present case. Therefore, the mere non recovery of substantial cash from the applicant’s residence does not absolve him of liability under the Act. 18. Thus, the above contentions of the applicant are denied. The investigation in the present matter establishes afar different factual matrix: material collected so far indicates active involvement of the applicant in the laundering of proceeds of crime arising out of the alleged liquor scam. 18. Thus, the above contentions of the applicant are denied. The investigation in the present matter establishes afar different factual matrix: material collected so far indicates active involvement of the applicant in the laundering of proceeds of crime arising out of the alleged liquor scam. The proceeds involved are substantial-estimated at not less than the figures already placed on record (and which the investigation continues to expand and trace). 19. The respondent has, on the basis of documents, recorded statements and other material, successfully established the three foundational facts necessary for prosecution under the PMLA: (a) commission of scheduled offence; b) existence of property/values derived from such criminal activity (proceeds of crime); and c) the applicant's involvement in processes/activities connected with such proceeds. The applicant's bald denial of involvement without engaged with the documentary and testimonial material already relied upon by the responder-cannot carry the day at the bail stage. It is the prosecution case that the incriminating nexus is shown by a combination of materials (statements under Section 50 and other recorded witnesses, financial entries and transaction trials, contemporaneous documents seized during investigation and other corroborative material) that together constitute prima facie evidence of the involvement of the applicant. The investigation into the full extend and location of the residue proceeds of crime is ongoing. There is credible material to indicate that further assets/proceeds remain to be traced. If the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is a real proximate risk that he may frustrate the investigation by influencing the witnesses, tampering with documents or facilitating dissipation of assets-unless strict and onerous conditions are imposed. 20. For these reasons, the respondent submits that the applicant has not satisfied the twin conditions (as pleaded by him) required for grant of bail under the PMLA in the present factual matrix. 21. Further it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Mahimananda Mishra , arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018 while relying on Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 12 SCC 129 , reiterated the settled parameters for consideration of bail applications. Mahimananda Mishra , arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018 while relying on Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 12 SCC 129 , reiterated the settled parameters for consideration of bail applications. The Court held as under: “ it is by now well settled that at the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses an obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court must not go into deep into merits of the matter while considering application for bail. All that needs to be established from the recorded is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.” In the light of the above legal principles and the evidence placed on record, the respondent submits that the present case is one where not only a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant but also where the statutory bar under Section 45 squarely applies. 22. The contention of the applicant that he satisfies the “triple test” (ie. no flight risk,no tampering of evidence and no influencing of witnesses) is misconceived and untenable. It is submitted that under the PMLA, 2002 satisfaction of the triple test by itself is not sufficient for grant of bail. The applicant must additionally satisfy the twin conditions imposed under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, namely : a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence; and b) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the instant case, the applicant fails to meet either of these statutory thresholds. The investigation has already revealed his active involvement in the laundering of POC amounting to several crores. If released on bail at this stage, it is highly likely that the applicant would launder, conceal or alienate the remaining POC thereby frustrating the ongoing investigation and defeating the very object of the PMLA. 23. He submits that the applicant has deliberately concealed residue POC with an intent to shield himself from the due process of law. If released on bail at this stage, it is highly likely that the applicant would launder, conceal or alienate the remaining POC thereby frustrating the ongoing investigation and defeating the very object of the PMLA. 23. He submits that the applicant has deliberately concealed residue POC with an intent to shield himself from the due process of law. Such concealment constitutes not only the offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 but also amounts to continuing criminal activity which directly undermines the effectiveness of the proceedings under the Act. 24. It is next submitted that the applicant is a sitting MLA and former Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh who continues to wield significant political influence and enjoys access to the highest bureaucratic and political circles of the State. These circumstances give rise to a strong and reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the applicant would abuse his position to influence witnesses, manipulate official records and tamper with critical evidence. In money laundering cases, where the offence is inherently linked to concealment and projection of tainted money, the apprehension of interference with evidence is far greater. Therefore the presumption of potential misuse of liberty is well founded and cannot be brushed aside a mere allegation. Reliance has been placed by the applicant in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 , which is wholly misplaced. In the said case, the Apex Court has dealt with an ordinary criminal prosecution under the IPC. In contrast, the present case arises under the PMLA, 2002 a special statute enacted to deal with the menace of money laundering and economic offences which pose a serious threat tot he financial system of the country. 25. It is a settled law that economic offences constitute a class apart, involving deep rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds and mut be viewed with a different degree of seriousness. ( In the matter of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 ). Thus, the principle laid down in Sanjay Chandra cannot dilute the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA 2002. 26. Similarly, reliance in the matter of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791 , is misconceived. The Apex Court in the said case has categorically reiterated that economic offences require a distinct approach given their grave impact on the economy and national interest. 26. Similarly, reliance in the matter of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791 , is misconceived. The Apex Court in the said case has categorically reiterated that economic offences require a distinct approach given their grave impact on the economy and national interest. Far from supporting the applicant’s case, the judgment underscores the principle that grant of bail in economic offences must be considered with caution. 27. It is submitted that the accused is a highly influential person and has played a crucial role in the Liquor Scam. Considering his political stature and influence, there is a serious and imminent likelihood of his attempting to interfere with the ongoing investigation, tamper with crucial evidence and influence witnesses, if released on bail. Orissa High Court in Mohd. Arif Vs. Enforcement Directorate , BLAPL No. 2607 of 2020 , while describing the impact of the offence of money laundering, has aptly characterized money laundering as an act of “financial terrorism”, poising a grave threat not only to the financial system of the country but also to the integrity and sovereignty of the nation . It has further reiterated the consistent view of the Apex Court regarding denial of bail in cases of economic offences. The relevant observation reads as under: 22. the offence of Money Laundering is nothing but an act of financial terrorism that poses a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also to the integrity and sovereignty of a nation. The international Monetary Fund estimates that laundered money generates about $590 billion to $ 1.5 trillion per year which constitutes approximately two to five percent of the world’s gross domestic product. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that economic offences are sui generis in nature as they stifle the delicate economic fabric of a society. These offences permeate to human consciousness posing numerous questions on the very integrity of the business world. The offenes, such as this, are committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and often shown to be given scant regard for a sordid residuum eft behind to be borne by the unfortunate ‘starry eyed’ petty investors. These offences permeate to human consciousness posing numerous questions on the very integrity of the business world. The offenes, such as this, are committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and often shown to be given scant regard for a sordid residuum eft behind to be borne by the unfortunate ‘starry eyed’ petty investors. The perpetrators of such deviant’ schemes’ including the petitioner herein, who promise utopia to their unsuspecting investors seem to have entered in a proverbial ‘Faustian bargain’ and are grossly unmindful of untold miseries of the faceless multitude who are left high and dry and consigned to the flames of suffering.” 28. Furthermore, the reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 , is misplaced . The said decision arose out of a case under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, where the statutory rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 were not attracted. In contrast, in the present case, the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 are mandatory and must be satisfied in addition to the settled principles governing bail. The factual matrix is completely different, and therefore the ratio of Sanjay Chandra does not apply to the present case. 29. It is submitted by the applicant that the ED/non-applicant has filed three prosecution complaints under Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002 before the learned Special Court (PMLA), Raipur arraigning a total of 19 accused persons and that the 2 nd Supplementary Prosecution complaint dated 12.03.2025 filed against the applicant alone, relies upon 40 documents running into 3,773 pages. Further it has been contended that due to the voluminous nature of the prosecution material, the trial is unlikely to commence or conclude within a reasonable time. 30. Similarly the applicant contends that the investigation in relation to the predicate offence is still going on and that the Special Court (PC Act) Raipur, is yet to frame charges, thereby delaying the trial of the predicate offence. The applicant relies upon the judgment in V. Senthil Balaji V. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement , Criminal appeal No. 4011/2024 to contend that the trial under the PMLA cannot be concluded until the trial of the scheduled offence is complete. 31. The applicant relies upon the judgment in V. Senthil Balaji V. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement , Criminal appeal No. 4011/2024 to contend that the trial under the PMLA cannot be concluded until the trial of the scheduled offence is complete. 31. To the above contentions, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent/ED that the said argument was raised in the matter of Tarun Kumar (supra) and the Apex Court rejected the same holding that mere pendency of trial or prolonged incarceration does not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. the applicant mut prima facie demonstrate that : i) He is not guilty of the alleged offence; and ii) He is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Failure to cross this statutory threshold dis entitles the applicant from the relief of regular bail, irrespective of the length of the complexity of the trial. 32. Further the contention of the applicant that ongoing investigation or protracted trial should entitle him to bail is untenable in law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the dictum of the Delhi High Court in Deepak Talwar V. Enforcement Directorate , AIR Online 2019 Del 1573 and further reinforced by the observations in Tarun Kumar (supra). 33. It is further submitted that while Section 436 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 provides for default bail in certain circumstances, the Court is required to exercise its discretion on a case- to-case basis. The proviso to Section 436A expressly recognized that in appropriate cases, the detention of an accused may be continued beyond one half of the specific period, provided the reasons are recorded in writing and suitable terms and conditions are imposed to ensure that the accused remains available for expeditious completion of the trial. 34. Economic offences constitute a distinct category of offenes which require a different approach while considering bail. Such offences, often arising from deep rooted conspiracies and involving substantial loss of public funds , have serious repercussions on the financial health and economic stability of the country . The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized the gravity of economic offences in judgments including ; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466 ; Gautam Kundu Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra); State of Bihar & Another Vs. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized the gravity of economic offences in judgments including ; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466 ; Gautam Kundu Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra); State of Bihar & Another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 . 35 . It is therefore submitted that the seriousness of the offence, the economic impact and the deliberate design of the criminal acts weigh heavily against the grant of bail in the present case, and the applicant cannot be allowed to evade the consequences of his actions on the pretext of delayed trial or prolonged investigation. Furthermore, it is well settled that in cases involving serious economic offences , mere delay in the trial cannot be the sole ground to grant bail. Reliance has been placed in the matters of Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. State of N CT Of Delhi and Anr. Crl.MC 796/221, Delhi High Court; State of Bihar & anr. V. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SC 751 and Satyendra Kumar Jain (supra). 36. The Right to Speedy Trial is indeed a foundational facet of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21, this principle cannot override the necessity to preserve the integrity of the investigation or trial . In the present case, the applicant is a highly influential individual, and if released on bail, there exists a real and substantial risk that he may induce witness, tamper with evidence or otherwise interfere with the investigation. Such actions would in fact, further delay the trial , defeating the very purpose of securing a speedy trial. As has been held in the matter of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others , 12024 SCC OnLine SC 109, it has ben observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, reaffirming the principle that the seriousness of the offence and potential prejudice to the investigation remain paramount. 37. Lastly, the applicant contends that the bail has been granted to some of the co-accused does not create an automatic right or parity for other accused, particularly where the fats, evidence and role of the accused differ materially. 37. Lastly, the applicant contends that the bail has been granted to some of the co-accused does not create an automatic right or parity for other accused, particularly where the fats, evidence and role of the accused differ materially. In the present case, investigation has established the the applicant has played a prime role in the offence of money laundering involving proceeds of crime exceeding 100 crores. The seriousness of the offence is a crucial consideration and is in itself, sufficient to reject bail. The classification of economic offences as a distinct class constitutes a clear jurisprudential recognition of the gravity and societal impact of such offences. CONSIDERATION : 38. Upon careful perusal of the records, including the prosecution complaints dated 12.03.2025, ECIRs and material on record, the following observations are made: i) The seriousness and gravity of the offence is extremely high. The applicant is alleged to have been deeply involved in laundering proceeds of crime amounting to over 100 crores, a figure indicative of large sale economic wrongdoing affecting the Stat’s revenue and public interest. ii) The offences under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA constitute scheduled offences, and the applicant has not satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, namely: a) Prima facie demonstrating that he is not guilty of the alleged offence: and b) Demonstrating that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. iii) The applicant holds a position of significant political influence and access to powerful bureaucratic circles, creating a strong likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released. iv) The investigation though advanced is still ongoing, to trace the residue proceeds of crime and identify other involved parties. Granting bail at this stge would severely impede the investigative process. v) Judicial precedents including State of Bihar and Another Vs. Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751 , Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary Vs. Union of India (2022) and other decisions, clearly establish that economic offence are sui generis in nature and must be approached with utmost caution in the matter of bail. The serious and far reaching repercussions of such offences justify continued custodial proceedings. vi) Mere delay in trial, co-accused being on bail or the applicant's public stature cannot outweigh the overriding public interest and the necessity of preserving the integrity of the investigation. 39. The serious and far reaching repercussions of such offences justify continued custodial proceedings. vi) Mere delay in trial, co-accused being on bail or the applicant's public stature cannot outweigh the overriding public interest and the necessity of preserving the integrity of the investigation. 39. In view of the above, the applicant has failed to meet the stringent requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA. The applicant, a high ranking public official is alleged to have actively participated in laundering proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 100 crores, derived from a large scale liquor scam. The custodial interrogation and presence in ED custody remain necessary to trace residual proceeds of crime, identify additional co-conspirators and to ensure evidence is preserved and witnesses are not influenced. 40. Economic offences of this magnitude are recognized as grave offences impacting public finances and society at large and the judiciary has consistently taken a strict approach in matters of bail to safeguard the interests of the State and the integrity of the investigation. The fact that some co-accused have been granted bail cannot be a determinative factor as the role of each accused, involvement and risk profile are distinct and case specific . While the court acknowledges that personal liberty under Article 21 is sacrosanct, the competing public interest, the seriousness of the offence and the ongoing investigative requirements weigh heavily against granting bail at this stage. 41. In view of the foregoing, the applicant has not discharged the burden imposed under Section 45 of the PMLA. Custodial retention is necessary to : (a) facilitate the ongoing investigation (b) Trace residual proceeds of crime, (c) Prevent interference with evidence and witnesses, and (d) protect the public interest in serious economic offences. CONCLUSION : 42. The applicant failed both the twin conditions and the triple test for grant of bail in economic offences. Custodial detention is necessary for protection of investigation of witnesses and public interest. 43. At this stage, the Court cannot close its eyes to the gravity of the allegations, the depth of the conspiracy and the deleterious impact of such economic offences on the moral fabric and financial integrity of the society. The applicant, by virtue of his position, wields considerable influence in the administrative and political machinery. 43. At this stage, the Court cannot close its eyes to the gravity of the allegations, the depth of the conspiracy and the deleterious impact of such economic offences on the moral fabric and financial integrity of the society. The applicant, by virtue of his position, wields considerable influence in the administrative and political machinery. His release on bail at this juncture poses a real and substantial risk of interference with the course of justice by way of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses and frustrating the ongoing investigation which is yet to culminate in the filing of further supplementary complaints. 44. The right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is indeed sacrosanct, but it is not absolute. It is subject to the larger and compelling public interest in ensuring a fair, unhampered and effective investigation into serious economic offences. In balancing the competing claims of individual liberty and societal interest, this Court is persuaded to hold that the scale tilts heavily in favor of denial of bail. 45. In view of the discussion and upon careful perusal of the facts, it is evident that the applicant, who at the relevant point of time, was not merely a public servant but holding the august office of Excise Minister, stands charged with an exceptionally grave nature of offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Being entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding the State’s resources and ensuring lawful regulation of excisable commodities, the applicant was under a legal as well as moral obligation to prevent any illicit trade in liquor. Instead, the material prima facie demonstrates active participation of the applicant himself in the clandestine and unlawful liquor trade, resulting in unlawful enrichment to the tune of several crores of rupees and inflicting colossal and irreversible damage upont the State exchequer. 46. The plea of parity advanced by the counsel for the applicant cannot come to the rescue of the applicant. Parity operates where the footing of the accused is comparable but it is wholly inapplicable when the role of the applicant is distinct in both design and dimension. Here, the culpability does not rests on passive acquiescence but on the active orchestration by one who was duty bound to prevent such crime. Parity operates where the footing of the accused is comparable but it is wholly inapplicable when the role of the applicant is distinct in both design and dimension. Here, the culpability does not rests on passive acquiescence but on the active orchestration by one who was duty bound to prevent such crime. A ministerial head, who ought to have been the sentinel of law, turning into its prime violator, cannot be equated with others of subordinate stature or peripheral role because evidence indicates that he himself became the epicenter of the offence. The breach of public trust by a functionary at such a high office is not only a statutory violation but also strikes at the very foundation of constitutional morality and undermines the public faith in governance. It is a settled canon of bail jurisprudence that the principle of parity, though rooted in the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14, is not absolute or automatic ( SLP (Crl.) No.9431 of 2023, Tarun Kumar Vs Assistant Directorate of Enforcement ). The conferment of bail upon co-accused persons does not ipso facto, create an indefeasible right in favor of every other accused, for each application must be adjudged on the touchstone of individual roles, specific allegations and nuanced factual matrices. 47. Thus, in a matter of this magnitude, where integrity of public office is under scanner, the grant of bail would send a deleterious message to society and encourage erosion of accountability in public life. 48. Accordingly, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and applying the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, this court find no merit whatsoever entitling him the discretionary relief of bail. Justice, morality and public interest compel a firm stance. The bail application is therefore, rejected.