'Contrary To Statute' : Supreme Court Pulls Up ED For Arguing That Stringent PMLA Bail Rigours Will Apply To Women

The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 19) pulled up the counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for contending that rigorous bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) will apply to women.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition challenging the denial of bail to woman accused of money laundering.“If submissions are going to be made by Union of India contrary to express statute, we will ask Attorney General to come...We will not countenance such submissions from the Union of India”, Justice Oka said.The PMLA imposes strict conditions for granting bail under Section 45(1)(ii), which requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offense and unlikely to commit any offense if released. However, a proviso to this section exempts women, minors, and sick and infirm persons from these stringent conditions.Shashi Bala, a government schoolteacher, has been accused of aiding the Shine City Group of Companies in laundering proceeds of crime. According to the ED's allegations, she acted as a confidant to the company's director, Rasheed Naseem, and facilitated illegal transactions by duping investors through fraudulent schemes. The Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected her bail application, noting the gravity of the charges and her alleged involvement in concealing and utilizing proceeds of crime. Thus, she approached the Supreme Court in the present petition.During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned the ED's counsel on the interpretation of the proviso. ASG Satya Darshi Sanjay for ED argued that the exemption for women was not absolute, and that the gravity of the offense warranted the application of rigorous bail conditions. “She is not a rustic woman; she is a director in the company where this entire thing has happened,” he submitted.Justice Oka responded, “Are you suggesting that the rigors of clause (ii) of Section 45(1) will also apply to women, contrary to the statute?” When he affirmed, the court remarked, “If submissions are going to be made by the Union of India contrary to the express statute, we will ask the Attorney General to appear.”The ASG said that the ED deserves an opportunity to be heard. Justice Oka asked, “Should we record your submission that we are not giving your opportunity of being heard?” The ASG clarified it was not his submission, and he was only seeking some time to respond to the affidavit and to persuade the court on his argument.Justice Oka pointed out that while the proviso to Section 45(1)(ii) grants an exception for women, it did not mean bail would be automatically granted. “Rigours of clause (ii) will not apply, that doesn't mean that mechanically bail will be granted,” Justice Oka remarked.The bench noted that the question of whether the stringent bail conditions apply to women under the PMLA is a straightforward issue. Justice Oka observed, “We will record that for answering such a simple question you are seeking time. This is happening practically every day in this court. Lawyers get up, say you are not hearing us, you are not granting opportunity.”The court recorded the ASG's initial submission that the rigorous conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA apply even to women, minors, and infirm persons, notwithstanding the proviso. The Court granted time to file a counter affidavit by January 10, 2025, and the matter was listed for further hearing on January 15, 2025.“In short, his submission is that even if a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman, or is a sick or infirm person, still the stringent conditions under clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will apply. When we called upon the learned ASG to make submissions on this aspect, he seeks time even to take instructions on this aspect. The counter affidavit to be filed by 10th January, 2025. List the Petition on 15th January, 2025”, the Court recorded.The High Court had rejected the argument plea that the applicant, a woman who has been in custody since November 2023, should be granted bail because the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, and she is a vulnerable woman. Her involvement with the main director and the large scale of the fraud, with multiple FIRs across various states affecting a significant number of people, disqualifies her from receiving the same relief as granted in the Supreme Court's decisions in K. Kavitha and Manish Sisodia at this time, the HC held.Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16260/2024 Case Title – Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of EnforcementClick Here To Read/Download Order

'Contrary To Statute' : Supreme Court Pulls Up ED For Arguing That Stringent PMLA Bail Rigours Will Apply To Women

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags