2024 (8) TMI 1411 - SC - Money Laundering

Woman accused entitled to special treatment under Section 45(1) PMLA, bail denial requires specific reasons

KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

The SC allowed the appeal and quashed the HC's order denying bail to a woman appellant under PMLA. The HC erroneously interpreted the proviso to Section ... Refusal to grant bail to the appellant (woman) - Applicability of proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for women - appellant indulged herself into tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA to be satisfied. No doubt that, as argued by the learned ASG, in a given case the accused even if a woman may not be automatically entitled to benefit of the said proviso and it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied. The learned Single Judge in the present case, while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, comes to a “heartening conclusion” that the appellant is highly qualified and a well-accomplished person. The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellant has made significant contributions to politics and social work. The learned Single Judge further observed that while deciding her bail application, the Court may appreciate her accomplishment, however, it cannot lose sight of the serious allegations levelled by the prosecution and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation and presented before the Court. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeds to observe that the present appellant cannot be equated to a “vulnerable woman” - the learned Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia [2023 (12) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT] would show that this Court has observed that the Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts. The Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi are quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Refusal of Bail by the High Court.2. Applicability of Proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).3. Allegations and Evidence against the Appellant.4. Consideration of Special Treatment for Women under PMLA.5. Misapplication of Legal Precedents by the High Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Refusal of Bail by the High Court:The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, which refused to grant bail to the appellant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against this decision.2. Applicability of Proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA:The appellant argued for bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which allows special treatment for women. The Supreme Court observed that the proviso permits certain categories of accused, including women, to be released on bail without the twin requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA being satisfied. The Court emphasized that while denying such a benefit, specific reasons must be given.3. Allegations and Evidence against the Appellant:The prosecution argued that the appellant was a kingpin in arranging deals and that statements from various witnesses and co-accused implicated her. The appellant was accused of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, including formatting her mobile to destroy evidence.4. Consideration of Special Treatment for Women under PMLA:The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been in custody for five months and that the trial involved a vast number of witnesses and documents, making a quick resolution unlikely. The Court reiterated that 'bail is the rule and refusal is an exception' and emphasized the fundamental right of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the learned Single Judge erroneously applied the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which is not limited to 'vulnerable women.'5. Misapplication of Legal Precedents by the High Court:The learned Single Judge misapplied the ratio laid down in the case of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, which stated that courts should be sensitive towards women and other vulnerable persons but did not restrict the proviso to only 'vulnerable women.' The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court's interpretation was incorrect and that the appellant, being a woman, was entitled to special treatment under the proviso.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's judgment and order. The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, deposit her passport, and regularly attend the trial court. The Court emphasized that no observations on the merits of the case should prejudice the trial. Pending applications were disposed of.Key Judgments:1. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 by the High Court were quashed and set aside.2. The appellant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the trial process.