2023 (9) TMI 187 - SCH - Money Laundering

Supreme Court affirms bail order for female accused, imposes restrictions on NCR stay, citizenship change.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's bail order for the respondent, emphasizing the discretion of the Court in granting bail to female accused ... Discretion to grant bail to women under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - distinction between considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail - judicial interference with High Court bail order under Article 136 - undertaking to relinquish foreign citizenship as a bail condition - restriction of movement within a specified territorial limit as a bail condition - periodic reporting to the investigating officer as a bail condition - prohibition on disposal of property without court permission during bailJudicial interference with High Court bail order under Article 136 - distinction between considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail - Whether this Court should interfere with the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the High Court, having exercised its discretion and concluded that the respondent should be released on bail after over 620 days in custody, drew a distinction between factors relevant to granting bail and those relevant to cancelling bail. In light of that exercise of discretion, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order under Article 136 of the Constitution and proceeded to dispose of the Special Leave Petition subject to further, specified conditions. [Paras 3]The High Court's grant of bail to the respondent is not interfered with.Discretion to grant bail to women under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - The legal effect of the proviso to Section 45, PMLA, insofar as it relates to grant of bail to a woman. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the proviso to Section 45 PMLA confers a discretion on the court to grant bail where the accused is a woman, but that this does not mean that the person specified in the proviso must necessarily be released on bail. The Court relied on earlier interpretation of analogous provisions under Section 437 CrPC to support the proposition that the statutory provision creates a discretion rather than an automatic right. [Paras 2]The proviso confers a discretion to grant bail to a woman and does not compel release as a matter of right.Undertaking to relinquish foreign citizenship as a bail condition - restriction of movement within a specified territorial limit as a bail condition - periodic reporting to the investigating officer as a bail condition - prohibition on disposal of property without court permission during bail - What additional conditions should be imposed while upholding the High Court's bail order. - HELD THAT: - In addition to the conditions imposed by the High Court, this Court imposed further conditions restricting the respondent to the limits of the National Capital Region, requiring her to report once every two weeks to the Investigating Officer, and prohibiting disposal of any property without the Special Court's permission. The Court recorded the respondent's counsel's statement that the respondent has applied to relinquish her foreign citizenship and gave an unconditional undertaking to do so forthwith, with compliance to be reported within a fortnight to the Special Judge; the Court further noted that any subsequent application for Indian citizenship may be processed in accordance with law. [Paras 4, 5]Bail is subject to the additional conditions specified by this Court and to the respondent's undertaking to relinquish foreign citizenship with compliance reported to the Special Judge.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is disposed of by declining to interfere with the High Court's grant of bail, subject to the High Court's terms and the additional conditions imposed by this Court, and the respondent's undertaking to relinquish her foreign citizenship with compliance to be reported to the Special Judge. Issues involved: Bail conditions, interpretation of statutory provisions, considerations for granting bail, discretion of the CourtUpon hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of bail conditions set by the High Court for the respondent. The High Court had granted bail subject to various terms and conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, surrendering citizenship of Dominican Republic, joining the investigation, appearing before the Court, providing contact details, and refraining from criminal activities or tampering with evidence. The Court noted that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 confers discretion on the Court to grant bail to a woman accused, and similar provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure have been interpreted by the Court previously. The Court emphasized that the considerations for granting bail are different from those for canceling bail, and since the respondent had already spent a significant period in custody, the Court decided not to interfere with the High Court's bail order.In addition to the conditions imposed by the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that the respondent must not leave the NCR region, report to the Investigating Officer regularly, and not dispose of any property without permission from the Special Court. The respondent's senior counsel confirmed that the respondent had applied to relinquish her citizenship of Dominican Republic as per the High Court's order and undertook to do so promptly. The respondent also expressed intent to apply for Indian citizenship, which would be processed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved by the Court.