Female accused in bank fraud case granted anticipatory bail despite money laundering charges under Section 45 PMLA

Chhattisgarh HC granted anticipatory bail to a female applicant accused of opening fraudulent bank accounts using villagers' documents with forged signatures, channeling deposited money as share capital through shell companies. Despite FIR registration in 2010, ECIR complaint was filed after 10 years in 2021. Court noted applicant's cooperation during investigation, her medical ailments, and that co-accused with similar charges had already received anticipatory bail from SC and HC. Applying Section 45 PMLA proviso for women with ailments and citing Satender Kumar Antil case, court granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, directing release upon arrest with imposed conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act).
3. Consideration of the applicant's medical condition and gender.
4. Previous judgments and legal precedents relevant to anticipatory bail and economic offences.

Summary:

1. Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, related to Crime No. ECIR/01/NGR/2011, renumbered as ECIR/RPSZO/05/2013, registered at the Enforcement Directorate for offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act.

2. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act):
The court considered the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which necessitate that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. The court also noted the proviso that allows for bail if the accused is a woman or is sick or infirm.

3. Consideration of the applicant's medical condition and gender:
The applicant, being a woman suffering from various ailments, including kidney transplantation and angioplasty, was argued to be entitled to anticipatory bail. The court acknowledged her medical conditions and the fact that she cooperated with the investigation, as evidenced by her permitted representation through an authorized person due to her medical condition.

4. Previous judgments and legal precedents relevant to anticipatory bail and economic offences:
The court referred to several judgments, including Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, and others, which highlighted the stringent provisions for bail in economic offences and the necessity for the accused to cooperate with the investigation. The court also noted that other co-accused in similar cases had been granted anticipatory bail by higher courts, including the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, considering her medical condition, gender, and cooperation with the investigation. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and to comply with specific conditions, including appearing before the trial court on all given dates and not involving herself in similar offences in the future. The observations made were solely for the purpose of the bail application and should not influence the trial court.

---