2023 (9) TMI 187 - SCH - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - accused is a woman - Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - HELD THAT - The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory provision does not mean that person specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be released on bail. Considerations which weigh in the grant of bail are distinct from those which are relevant to the adjudication of an application for cancellation of bail. The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution. The respondent is released on bail subject to conditions imposed - SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Bail conditions, interpretation of statutory provisions, considerations for granting bail, discretion of the Court

Upon hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of bail conditions set by the High Court for the respondent. The High Court had granted bail subject to various terms and conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, surrendering citizenship of Dominican Republic, joining the investigation, appearing before the Court, providing contact details, and refraining from criminal activities or tampering with evidence. The Court noted that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 confers discretion on the Court to grant bail to a woman accused, and similar provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure have been interpreted by the Court previously. The Court emphasized that the considerations for granting bail are different from those for canceling bail, and since the respondent had already spent a significant period in custody, the Court decided not to interfere with the High Court's bail order.

In addition to the conditions imposed by the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that the respondent must not leave the NCR region, report to the Investigating Officer regularly, and not dispose of any property without permission from the Special Court. The respondent's senior counsel confirmed that the respondent had applied to relinquish her citizenship of Dominican Republic as per the High Court's order and undertook to do so promptly. The respondent also expressed intent to apply for Indian citizenship, which would be processed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved by the Court.