Woman Granted Bail Under PMLA Exception Due to Gender; Court Finds No Flight Risk or Evidence Tampering Concerns.

The HC granted bail to the applicant, a woman, under the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA, exempting her from the twin conditions for bail due to her gender. The court found no substantial evidence of flight risk, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses, noting her willingness to renounce Dominican Republic citizenship and her limited involvement in the alleged money laundering activities. Bail conditions included surrendering her passport, not leaving the country, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court clarified that these findings were solely for the bail decision and not the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 45 PMLA and its proviso for granting bail to a woman.
2. Merits of the case and the applicant's involvement in money laundering.
3. Satisfaction of the triple test for granting bail: flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.

Summary:

Applicability of Section 45 PMLA:
1. Proviso to Section 45 PMLA: The court examined whether the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which provides relaxation for women, minors, and infirm persons, applies to the applicant. It was noted that the proviso is based on Article 15(3) of the Constitution, allowing special provisions for women and children.
2. Interpretation of 'Woman': The court emphasized that the PMLA does not define 'woman' and that the intent of the Constitution and the PMLA is not to classify women based on education, occupation, or social standing. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's status as a well-educated businesswoman should exclude her from the proviso's benefits.
3. Precedents: The court referred to previous judgments, including Devki Nandan Garg v. Directorate of Enforcement and Komal Chadha v. SFIO, which supported the view that the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA provides relaxation for women without further sub-classification.
4. Conclusion: The court concluded that the applicant, being a woman, falls within the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA, exempting her from the twin conditions for bail under this section.

Merits of the Case:
1. Mens Rea: The court noted that mens rea (criminal intent) is crucial for the offense of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA. The court found that the applicant's knowledge of dealing with proceeds of crime could only be determined after evidence is led.
2. Role in Companies: The court found that the applicant's involvement in Prakausali and Mayfair was limited and that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs or key managerial decisions. The court also noted that other family members who were directors in these companies were not named as accused.
3. Specific Allegations: The court addressed various allegations, including the transfer of Rs. 107.4 crores, Rs. 43.7 crores, Rs. 7 crores, and other amounts. The court found that the applicant provided prima facie reasonable explanations for these transactions, and her involvement in these transactions could only be ascertained after a full trial.
4. Trikar Group: The court noted that the Trikar Group was primarily managed by Sanjay Chandra and others, and the applicant's involvement was limited to being a nominee director from 2017 onwards. The court found inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses regarding the applicant's role in the Trikar Group.

Satisfaction of the Triple Test:
1. Flight Risk: The court considered the applicant's citizenship of the Dominican Republic and her travel history. The court noted that the applicant had traveled in and out of India multiple times and had not attempted to flee. The applicant's passport was already with the ED, and she expressed willingness to renounce her Dominican Republic citizenship as a bail condition.
2. Tampering with Evidence: The court found no evidence that the applicant tampered with evidence or influenced witnesses. All relevant documents were already in the custody of the ED.
3. Influencing Witnesses: The court found no incriminating evidence in the WhatsApp messages between the applicant and her husband, Sanjay Chandra. The court noted that the applicant was not involved in any criminal activity during her custody and that the trial was yet to commence.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to several conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, surrendering her Dominican Republic passport, not leaving the country, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court emphasized that these observations were for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.

---