2025 (1) TMI 850 - SCH - Money Laundering

Seeking garnt of bail to a woman - Money Laundering - predicate offence - proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) exempts women from the stringent bail conditions outlined in clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 or not - HELD THAT - 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 time is granted 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 not apply to a woman, in view of proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA. As rigours of clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply, the Special Court ought to have treated the application as the one under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ). Hence, the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. (the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 480 of the BNSS) will apply. As the predicate offence is not under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the maximum sentence can be of 7 years. The appellant is a woman. There is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future, considering the fact that 67 witnesses are to be examined. There are no antecedents of the appellant brought on record. Therefore, a case is made out for enlarging the appellant on bail till the conclusion of the trial. Conclusion - The appellant, being a woman, is exempt from the stringent bail conditions of the PMLA and is entitled to bail under the Cr.P.C. or BNSS, with appropriate conditions to ensure her participation in the trial. Apppeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) exempts women from the stringent bail conditions outlined in clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45.
Whether the appellant, being a woman and with no antecedents, is entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) or the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Applicability of the Proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA for Women

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The PMLA, particularly Section 45, establishes stringent conditions for granting bail to accused individuals. The proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45, however, creates an exception for certain categories, including women.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted the proviso to mean that the rigorous conditions of clause (ii) do not apply to women. Initially, the Additional Solicitor General argued otherwise, but ultimately conceded that the proviso exempts women from these conditions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the appellant is a woman and that there are no antecedents against her on record.
Application of Law to Facts: Given that the appellant is a woman, the court determined that the stringent bail conditions of clause (ii) of Section 45 do not apply, thus allowing for consideration under more lenient provisions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the initial argument by the ASG that the stringent conditions should apply even to women but found this position unsupported by the legal framework.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA exempts women from the stringent bail conditions, thus allowing for a more lenient bail consideration.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Bail under Cr.P.C. or BNSS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 483 of the BNSS provide the framework for granting bail, particularly when the stringent conditions of the PMLA do not apply.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that since the appellant is a woman and the case does not involve a predicate offense under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the maximum sentence is seven years, thus making her eligible for bail.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of any criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon due to the number of witnesses.
Application of Law to Facts: Applying the more lenient provisions of the Cr.P.C. and BNSS, the court found a compelling case for granting bail to the appellant.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's arguments were considered, but the court found that the legal provisions and the appellant's circumstances justified bail.
Conclusions: The appellant was entitled to bail under the applicable provisions of the Cr.P.C. and BNSS, subject to conditions ensuring her cooperation with the trial process.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "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."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA provides an exception for women, exempting them from the stringent bail conditions typically applied under the Act.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the appellant, being a woman, is exempt from the stringent bail conditions of the PMLA and is entitled to bail under the Cr.P.C. or BNSS, with appropriate conditions to ensure her participation in the trial.

← Previous