Money-laundering case over 2008-2013 transactions and delayed proceedings: Section 45 twin-conditions weighed, regular bail granted

In a PMLA prosecution arising from scheduled offences, the Del HC considered whether continued judicial custody was warranted and whether the Section 45 twin conditions should bar regular bail. The Court relied on the long lapse between the alleged transactions (2008-2013) and initiation of proceedings, the applicant not being charge-sheeted or summoned in the predicate offence, completion of investigation against the applicant with the prosecution complaint already filed, partial restitution by the principal accused who remained absconding, and the likelihood of a protracted trial with numerous witnesses and stalled predicate proceedings. Regular bail was granted on bond and sureties subject to stipulated conditions.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, in the case of a woman accused, the embargo of the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA applies, or whether bail is to be assessed on general bail principles under the first proviso to Section 45(1).

(ii) Whether, on a prima facie appraisal of the material and the circumstances highlighted in the record, continued judicial custody of the applicant was warranted, or regular bail ought to be granted in the PMLA case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Applicability of Section 45 PMLA twin conditions to a woman accused

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined Section 45 of the PMLA, specifically the first proviso to Section 45(1) in relation to clause (ii) (the "twin conditions"). The Court also applied the principle stated in a Supreme Court decision referred to in the judgment, which the Court treated as settling the position for women accused.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that, for a woman accused, the first proviso operates as an exception to the twin conditions in Section 45(1)(ii). The Court held that the statutory embargo can be relaxed for such an accused, and that bail may be considered on general principles, while still keeping in view the nature and gravity of allegations.

Conclusion: The Court conclusively held that, since the applicant is a woman, the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) need not be satisfied, and the bail request falls to be assessed on general bail considerations, with due regard to seriousness of allegations.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant made out a case for regular bail on the Court's prima facie assessment

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court evaluated the prosecution's core allegation that proceeds of crime from the scheduled offence were routed to the applicant and used for acquisition/holding of immovable properties, and that the applicant thereby participated in acquisition, possession, use and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted. At the same time, the Court weighed multiple record-based circumstances cumulatively: (a) the applicant was not charge-sheeted in the predicate case and the Magistrate, in the private complaint proceedings, declined to take cognizance against her, recording no offence made out even for summoning; (b) the alleged underlying transactions were old (2008-2013), with the scheduled-offence FIR in 2016 and the ECIR only in 2025; (c) a substantial amount (about Rs. 2.7 crores) had been returned to the complainant, so the case could not, at that stage, be treated as involving projection/concealment of the entire alleged amount; (d) the principal accused in the predicate matter had been declared a proclaimed offender yet remained unarrested, and the Court noted absence of effective steps to arrest him despite his appearance through counsel in the PMLA proceedings; (e) the applicant had remained in custody for over four months; (f) the investigation qua the applicant was complete and the prosecution complaint had been filed; and (g) trial would take time since 24 witnesses were cited and the predicate trial was not progressing due to the absconding of the only accused there.

Conclusion: On the cumulative assessment, the Court found "no ground" to further keep the applicant in judicial custody and granted regular bail, subject to conditions including furnishing bonds/sureties, surrender of passport, travel restriction, keeping contact number active, providing residence details, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with evidence/non-influencing witnesses, and regular attendance before the trial court.

---