PMLA | Courts Not Obliged To Grant Bail Just Because Accused Is A Woman; First Proviso To S.45 Not Mandatory : Supreme Court

Yesterday, while dismissing the bail plea of Saumya Chaurasia, the-then deputy secretary to former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in a money laundering case, the Supreme Court observed that nowadays educated and well-placed women in the society engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities. The first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, could not be construed as obligatory or mandatory, it said. The court also emphasised the importance of considering factors such as the extent of involvement and the nature of evidence while exercising discretion under this provision and granting bail on the ground that an accused is a woman. In its verdict, the court deliberated on whether Chaurasia, being a woman, should be granted the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The proviso, which confers discretion on the court to grant bail where the accused is a woman or belongs to any of the other categories mentioned, states -"Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs"The bench composed of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi observed that the use of the expression 'may be' in the first proviso to Section 45 indicates that the benefit of the provision is discretionary and may be extended by the court considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The court emphasised the need for courts to be sensitive and sympathetic to the category of persons mentioned in the first proviso, such as women, while exercising discretion. However, it cautioned against interpreting the provision as obligatory, as it could lead to potential misuse. It observed -"No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such Crimes, nonetheless, the courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays the educated and well placed women in the society engage themselves in the commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal activities. In essence, the courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while granting the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons mentioned therein. The extent of involvement of the persons falling in such category in the alleged offences, the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations."In the Chaurasia case, the court found sufficient evidence indicating her active involvement in the money laundering offence as defined in Section 3 of the 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," the bench noted in its order.Case DetailsSaumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8847 of 2023Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1057Click here to read the judgment Click here to read the judgment

PMLA | Courts Not Obliged To Grant Bail Just Because Accused Is A Woman; First Proviso To S.45 Not Mandatory : Supreme Court

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

PMLA | Courts Not Obliged To Grant Bail Just Because Accused Is A Woman; First Proviso To S.45 Not Mandatory : Supreme Court

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers