NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that a woman can not be denied benefit of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act only because she is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vishwanathan, by its August 27 order on bail to Telangana's MLC K Kavitha in Delhi liquor policy scam case, said the Delhi High Court's single judge has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
"We find that the single judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”," the bench said.
The court said when a statute specifically provided 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.
Section 45(1) of the PMLA stated “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 said day in and day out it is argued on behalf of the prosecution that merely because an accused has a special status in terms of he/she being a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly or a Minister or a Chief Minister, etc, they should not be given a special treatment and should be treated equally as any other accused.
The single judge in her order on July 1, 2024, while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, came to a “heartening conclusion” that the appellant is highly qualified and a well-accomplished person.
The HC judge had further observed that the appellant made significant contributions to politics and social work but the court cannot lose sight of the serious allegations levelled by the prosecution and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation and presented before it.
The HC judge went on to observe that the present appellant cannot be equated to a “vulnerable woman".
The apex court said the judge had totally misapplied the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia Vs Directorate of Enforcement (2024).
"This court, in the carefully couched paragraph used the phrase “persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”," the bench said.
Further, this court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, the bench added.
In the Manish Sisodia case, the bench said it had observed that the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.
"We had also reiterated the well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions," the bench said.
