TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner had registered report in ECIR/BGZO/06/2025 against the respondent and others on the ground that multiple criminal cases are registered against the respondent and others for the schedule offences on the allegation that the accused had entered into criminal conspiracy and cheated several individuals to the tune of crores of rupees and the proceeds of the crime was laundered. 4. The respondent who was arrested by the petitioner had filed a regular bail application before the Court of Special Judge which was allowed on 17.06.2025. Assailing the same, the prosecution is before this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of SHASHI BALA @ SHASHI BALA SINGH VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - Criminal Appeal No.212/2025 disposed of on 15.01.2025, and also in the case of KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269. He further submits that charge sheet runs upto more than 6,700 pages and prosecution has cited 39 charge-sheet witnesses in the present case. Till date, trial has not commenced, and therefore, the chances of the case being disposed of on merits in the near soon is remote. He also submits that further proceedings of the criminal cases registered for predicate offences against the respondent has been stayed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. The material on record would go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act, the order granting bail to the respondent solely for the reason that she is a woman is bad in law. In support of this argument, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saumya Charasiya's case supra and Tarun Kumar's case supra. 9. In Saumya Charasiya's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos.23 & 24, has observed as under: "23. The use of the expression "may be" in the first proviso to Section 45 clearly indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the court considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. would be material considerations. 24. In the instant case as discussed hereinabove, there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 PMLA. As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the appellant who is a lady." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment rendered in Kalvakunta Kavitha's cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulous elements ......." 27. This Court, in the carefully couched paragraph extracted above used the phrase "persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements". This is vastly different from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA applies only to "vulnerable woman". Further, this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. 28. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "On its plain reading, the first proviso to sub- Section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA. Therefore, when a woman applies for bail, the twin conditions in clause (ii) need not be satisfied. Though we have granted time to the learned Additional Solicitor General to make submissions in support of the submission that notwithstanding the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA, rigours of clause (ii) of sub- Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will apply even to a woman, today the learned Solicitor General appears and states that rigours of clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will ....