Back
for Women Under PMLA: Karnataka HC Rejects Plea
In a significant ruling concerning the application of the , the has dismissed a petition filed by the () seeking the granted to Aishwarya Gowda. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over the matter, reaffirmed the court’s stance on the discretionary, protective measures afforded to women under the statute.
Background of the Dispute The case arose from allegations that Aishwarya Gowda had orchestrated a financial scheme in Bengaluru and Mandya, purportedly projecting herself as a well-connected individual to lure victims into investing in gold and business ventures. The registered an ECIR alleging that exceeded several crores. Following her arrest on , a local granted her on . Challenging this, the approached the High Court, contending that the trial court failed to adhere to the rigid "" for mandated under .
Arguments from the Bench and Bar The Enforcement Directorate argued that the trial court’s decision was overly reliant on the respondent’s gender, asserting that the does not exempt women from the stringent requirements of the Act. Relying on , the prosecution submitted that the benefit for women is not an automatic right but requires a stringent of the merits.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent emphasized that the investigation was complete, a voluminous 6,700-page charge sheet had been filed, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future. Invoking recent Supreme Court precedents such as and , the defense argued that the are not applicable when is sought by a woman under the (1).
Legal Analysis and Precedents The High Court underscored that the (1) acts as a legislative exception to the rigours of the PMLA’s provisions. Justice Shetty clarified that while the law requires , it specifically recognizes the vulnerability of women and other specific categories. By referencing the judgment in Shashi Bala , the Court highlighted that the Solicitor General had previously conceded that the "" of Section 45 do not apply to women in the same manner as they do to other accused categories.
Key Observations The judgment clarifies that while the judiciary must remain vigilant, it must also respect the legislative intent behind the PMLA’s special provisions:
-
"The proviso permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on , without the twin requirement under to be satisfied."
(Referring to Kalvakuntla Kavitha ) -
"On its plain reading, the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to ."
( Shashi Bala ) -
"The court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied."
(Referring to the burden on the prosecution to justify denying the proviso)
Final Decision Finding that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and noting that the respondent had cooperated fully with interrogations, the High Court declined to cancel her . The Court observed that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a compelling necessity for incarcerated . This ruling reinforces the judicial inclination toward granting in cases where the prosecution’s investigation is concluded and the trial timeline is uncertain, especially when the accused falls within the statutory categories provided by the PMLA proviso.
