Discretionary bail for women under PMLA: SC declined interference and required additional safeguards to continue bail

The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits discretionary bail for a woman accused, and the corresponding proviso to Section 437 CrPC does not create an automatic right to release. The principles governing grant of bail differ from those applicable to cancellation of bail. Noting that the respondent had been in custody for more than 620 days, the SC declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion under Article 136 and allowed the bail order to stand, while directing that additional safeguards be applied alongside the existing conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the respondent, a woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, warranted interference and whether additional conditions were required while permitting the bail to stand.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers discretion to grant bail in the case of a woman accused, and the analogous first proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not create an automatic entitlement to release. The considerations governing grant of bail are distinct from those relevant to cancellation of bail. The respondent had remained in custody for more than 620 days, and the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The bail order was allowed to stand with further safeguards in addition to the conditions already imposed by the High Court.

Conclusion: Interference with the grant of bail was declined, and the respondent's bail was upheld with additional conditions.

---