SC Cautions Courts to Avoid Showing Leniency in Granting Bail to Women in PMLA Cases, Regardless of Their Involvement

Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 326 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Aniruddha Bose & Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Supreme Court turned down the bail plea of the appellant, who was the former Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister. There was sufficient evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA.

The question raised before the court was whether appellant, being a woman, should be granted the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA?

Proviso first to section 45 states that

“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.”

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court stated that as there was 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.

Further, the court also highlighted that 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 considering the circumstances of the case. Court cautioned against interpreting the provision as obligatory, as it could lead to potential misuse.

The court noticed that it has been found that there was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court. Further, the evidence also reflected that she was actively involved in the money laundering.

Therefore, the court dismissed the said appeal with cost of Rs.1 Lakh, which shall be deposited by the Appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks from the date of order.