these judgments, this Court has held that, “amended Section 45, would not revive twin conditions as imposed in Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act and would not have application, while granting bail to the accused of an ofence under the PMLA Act.” Mr. Singh submitted that the judgment in the case of Samir Bhujbal was delivered, before the judgment in the case of P. Chidambaram and, therefore, this judgment is to be kept out of consideration, while deciding the issue, as to the application of twin conditions to the ofence of ‘money laundering’. In so far as the judgment in the case of, Dipak Kochhar , is concerned, Mr. Singh submitted, the learned Judge of this Court has not considered the, binding precedent, of the Apex Court in the case of P.Chidambaram (Supra) . Thus, Mr. Singh, learned ASG submitted that judgments in the case of Samir Bhujbal and Dipak Kochhar were of no assistance to the respondent-accused. Mr. Singh, the learned ASG would submit, although the Delhi High Court in the case of Upendra Rai 2009 SCC Online 9086 has followed the Sameer Bhujbal (Supra) and taken a view that twin conditions do not revive, yet, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the SLP Diary No.5150 of 2020 has stayed the operation of
