Woman proviso under PMLA is discretionary, and bail can be refused on prima facie involvement in proceeds of crime.

The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not confer an automatic right to bail on a woman accused; the Court must still assess the facts and the material collected in investigation. Where the record prima facie indicates active involvement in generation, concealment or use of proceeds of crime, including alleged coordination with co-accused and facilitation of concealment of cash, bail may be refused despite the statutory relaxation. At the bail stage, the investigation material was treated as sufficient to show an alleged role in money-laundering activity, so release was not warranted on the woman proviso alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, being a woman accused in a PMLA case, was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the materials collected in investigation disclosed a sufficient role in the alleged generation, concealment and use of proceeds of crime to justify of bail.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not create an automatic right to bail merely because the accused is a woman. The discretion remains with the Court, and the statutory relaxation does not dispense with judicial assessment of the facts. The record indicated that the petitioner was alleged to have played an active role in the paper leak operation, including arranging a printer at her residence, maintaining continuous contact with the co-accused, and facilitating concealment of cash allegedly linked to the proceeds of crime. The investigation also referred to financial benefits, unexplained cash deposits, and recovery of money at the instance of the co-accused from premises connected with the petitioner's family. At the bail stage, these materials were sufficient to show involvement in the alleged offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail on the strength of the woman proviso alone, and the bail application was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: Bail was declined because the statutory relaxation under Section 45 did not compel release and the investigation materials disclosed a prima facie role in the alleged money-laundering activity.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is discretionary and does not mandate bail merely on account of the accused being a woman; bail may be refused where investigation materials prima facie show involvement in the offence and in relation to proceeds of crime.

---