Anticipatory bail for woman under PMLA proviso upheld where special statutory protection required specific reasons for denial.

A woman facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered for anticipatory bail under the first proviso to Section 45, which confers a special but discretionary protection. The Court noted that denial of this benefit requires specific reasons and, on the facts presented, found the applicant entitled to the statutory indulgence. Anticipatory bail was therefore granted, and the direction for release in the event of arrest was made absolute subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether a woman facing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to anticipatory bail under the proviso to Section 45 of that Act.

Analysis: The application invoked Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for anticipatory bail in an ECIR alleging offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that the case arose out of overlapping criminal material, including the earlier vigilance case and the partnership dispute involving the principal witness, but the decisive question was the effect of the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Relying on the principles stated by the Supreme Court that the proviso gives a special but discretionary protection to a woman, and that denial of such benefit requires specific reasons, the Court found the applicant entitled to the statutory indulgence on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to anticipatory bail, and the direction for release in the event of arrest was made absolute, subject to conditions.

---