Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 proviso – Beneficial treatment under s.45 proviso – Entitlement – Applicant-well educated and accomplished woman, has remained Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Council, was one of the chief conspirators in the entire conspiracy relating to formulation and implementation of new Excise Policy of Delhi – CBI case and ED case against her – Bail application – Rejected by the trial court as also the Single Judge of the High Court – Correctness: Held: Proviso to s.45(1) would entitle a woman for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered – Proviso permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement u/s.45 to be satisfied – Entitlement to the benefit is not automatic, it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – However, when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied – On facts, the Single Judge of the High Court totally misdirected itself while denying the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) to the applicant – Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to s.45(1) is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman” and that the applicant could not be equated to a “vulnerable woman” – Courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence – Furthermore, it cannot be said that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) – Also, in CBI case charge sheet has been filed and in ED case complaint has been filed, as such the custody of the appellant not necessary for investigation – Appellant has been behind the bars for the last five months – There are about 493 witnesses to be examined and voluminous documents to be considered, the likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future is impossible – Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial – Bail is the rule and refusal is an exception – Fundamental right of liberty provided Art.21 is superior to the statutory restrictions – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge quashed and set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith on bail on furnishing bail bonds – Constitution of India – Art.21. [Paras 10-14, 16, 17-22, 24, 25, 27-29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.