Statutory bail protections for women and prolonged custody can justify bail despite pending money laundering proceedings.

A woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held entitled to the proviso to Section 45, so the twin bail conditions were not treated as an automatic bar. Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was read as a liberty-protective provision against prolonged pre-trial detention, and custody beyond the statutory threshold supported release even where multiple proceedings were pending. Parity also favoured bail because co-accused with comparable roles had already been enlarged on bail. On a combined assessment of statutory protection, custody undergone, trial delay, and parity, bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a woman accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 without being subjected to the twin conditions; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on account of custody already undergone and the nature of pending proceedings; (iii) Whether parity with similarly placed co-accused supported grant of bail.

Issue (i): Whether a woman accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 without being subjected to the twin conditions.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 expressly extends a special bail treatment to a woman accused. The statutory benefit is not confined to a narrowly defined category of vulnerable women, and the Court noted that the precedent relied upon by the enforcement agency did not limit the proviso in that manner. The mere seriousness of the allegations or the quantum of proceeds allegedly handled was held insufficient to deny the statutory benefit in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45, and the twin conditions were not treated as an absolute bar.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on account of custody already undergone and the nature of pending proceedings.

Analysis: Section 479 was construed as a liberty-protective provision intended to prevent prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The Court held that the custody threshold had been crossed, and that delay attributable to the accused could not defeat relief where the petitioner had already remained in custody for more than half of the maximum sentence. It further held that multiplicity of proceedings under sub-section (2) is a relevant factor, but not an absolute bar that eclipses the discretion under sub-section (1). Given the length of custody, the stage of the case, and the likelihood of trial delay, the petitioner was found entitled to the statutory benefit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release under Section 479.

Issue (iii): Whether parity with similarly placed co-accused supported grant of bail.

Analysis: Several co-accused, including persons attributed roles in handling, layering, moving, or benefiting from the proceeds of crime, had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner's alleged role did not stand on a graver footing than those co-accused and that parity was relevant, especially where the allegations against her were confined to handling and enjoying the proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Parity favoured the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted on a combined consideration of the statutory bail protections, the custody already undergone, the stage and likely duration of trial, and parity with co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not automatically subjected to the twin conditions of Section 45, and prolonged pre-trial custody beyond the statutory threshold under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may justify bail even where multiple proceedings are pending, if no exceptional reason to deny relief is shown.

---