PMLA bail and Section 45 discretion: SC upheld refusal of bail, rejected automatic woman-proviso relief, and condemned misleading disclosures.

SC held that bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is governed by the stringent twin conditions in Section 45, and the investigative material here showed a prima facie nexus between the accused, the alleged extortion network, proceeds of crime, and assets held through relatives and associates, so bail was not justified on merits. The first proviso to Section 45 for women was held to be discretionary, not an automatic entitlement, and no special benefit was warranted on these facts. The Court also rejected the challenge based on absence of a surviving scheduled offence, noting that the later charge-sheet was not before the High Court and that survival of the predicate offence must be determined by the competent court. Misleading disclosures in the special leave petition were also deprecated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate and the twin conditions under Section 45. (ii) Whether the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was mandatorily available to the appellant as a woman. (iii) Whether the absence of a surviving scheduled offence, on the basis of the later charge-sheet and cognizance order, rendered the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without jurisdiction. (iv) Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for incorrect and misleading disclosures made in the special leave petition.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate and the twin conditions under Section 45.

Analysis: The complaint and investigative material showed a prima facie nexus between the appellant, the alleged extortion network, the movement of proceeds of crime, and acquisition of assets in the names of relatives and associates. The Court held that the material was sufficient to prima facie indicate involvement in money laundering and that bail in such cases must be considered in the light of the stringent conditions under Section 45.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to bail on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was mandatorily available to the appellant as a woman.

Analysis: The proviso confers discretion on the Court and does not create an automatic entitlement to bail. The Court held that the category of persons mentioned in the proviso may be granted bail only upon a judicious exercise of discretion, having regard to the facts, the gravity of the accusation, and the evidence collected. On the facts, the appellant did not satisfy the Court that such special benefit should be extended.

Conclusion: The proviso did not entitle the appellant to bail as a matter of course.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a surviving scheduled offence, on the basis of the later charge-sheet and cognizance order, rendered the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court found that the later charge-sheet and cognizance order were not before the High Court when the matter was heard and that the record did not show that the predicate offence had ended in discharge, acquittal, or quashing. It further held that a charge-sheet by the investigating officer does not by itself conclude whether a scheduled offence survives; that question lies with the competent court in the predicate case.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence of a surviving scheduled offence failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for incorrect and misleading disclosures made in the special leave petition.

Analysis: The Court found that the special leave petition and supporting material made misleading assertions about documents that were not shown to have been before the High Court. It held that full and correct disclosure is required and deprecated the attempt to misrepresent the record.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing bail was sustained, and the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's view on merits while also condemning the appellant's lack of candour in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail is controlled by the stringent requirements of Section 45, the proviso for women is discretionary and not automatic, and absence of a final adjudication extinguishing the predicate offence is necessary before a money-laundering prosecution can fail for want of a scheduled offence.

---