Karnataka High Court Rejects ED's Bail Cancellation Plea Against Aishwarya Gowda Accused In Gold Investment Scam

The Karnataka High Court has last week dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to Aishwarya Gowda, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for an alleged ₹15 crores Gold Investment Scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted that the proviso to Section 45 PMLA, which prescribes special treatment for Bail to women and others in money laundering cases, is not automatic. However, any such denial of special treatment, must be reasoned.

“…the respondent[Aishwarya Gowda] has been granted bail in all the cases registered against her for predicate offences and further proceedings in some of the cases registered against her for predicate offences has been stayed by this Court. The respondent who is a married women was in custody for nearly two months and the Trial Judge has observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that they require the presence of the respondent for investigation in the present case”, the High Court said.

The accused Aishwarya Gowda was arrested on April 24, 2025 pertaining to an ECIR for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. She was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court, Bengaluru on June 17, 2025, which the ED challenged before the High Court.

The specific allegation against Gowda is that she had conspired with others and cheated several individuals to the tune of several crores and the proceeds of the crime was laundered. According to the allegations, Gowda pretended to a wealthy real estate dealer who claimed to be the sister of Congress Leader D K Suresh and Karnataka CM D K Shivakumar.

Gowda's counsel, Adv. Sunil Kumar S, argued that she was a married woman and she had cooperated with ED's investigation so far. According to the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, the twin conditions required to be met for bail won't apply to the categories including women who are accorded special treatment, Kumar argued while relying on Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement [2025].

The chargesheet running up to 6,700 pages has already been submitted, and trial has not commenced yet, the counsel added.

However, ED's counsel Anuparna Boradoloi, contended that the trial court granted bail solely on the reasoning that the accused was a woman without recording whether Gowda has met the twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1) of PMLA.

For context, Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act imposes twin conditions of court's reasonable satisfaction that the accused may not be guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence in the future.

It was further contended that the proviso to Section 480 [When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence] of BNSS, 2023, does not automatically apply to PMLA offences, and that the court must still satisfy itself on the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA Act first.

The court, after hearing the arguments, noted that though the ED has relied on Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026), the apex court had in the same case observed that the proviso to Section 45 is discretionary and not mandatory. Even though its discretionary even by the mandate of proviso to Section 45, the apex court in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. ED (2024) has said that the proviso entitles women to special treatment while considering bail, and that denial of such benefit must be supported by specific reasons.

Hence, the court underscored that the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) need not be satisfied when a woman seeks bail under the proviso to Section 45.

“…In the present case, the prosecution has filed the charge sheet which runs upto more than 6,700 pages, and there are 39 charge-sheet witnesses cited in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashi Bala's case supra taking into consideration that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is seven years and possibility of trial being concluded in the near future being remote, considering that the accused was a woman, has held that a prima facie case is made out for enlarging the accused on bail”, the court pointed out.

The Court, therefore dismissed ED's petition.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda

Case No: CRL.P No.13915 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230

Click Here To Read/Download Order