Proviso to Section 45 PMLA Relaxes Twin-Condition Stringency for Women: Delhi High Court Grants Bail - 20252-12-27

Bridging the Gap: Delhi High Court Clarifies Bail Thresholds for Women under PMLA

In a significant judicial development, the Delhi High Court has underscored the distinct legal standing of women seeking bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, the Court cleared the path for grant of bail to one Sandeepa Virk, emphasizing that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA serves as an essential exception to the statute’s traditionally stringent “twin conditions.”

The Long Shadow of a Decade-Old Dispute

The case traces its origins to an initial FIR registered in 2016 relating to allegations of financial deception between 2008 and 2013, where the complainant alleged she was duped out of nearly ₹6 crores under the pretext of being cast as a lead actress in a film. While the primary accused, Amit Gupta, has been declared a proclaimed offender, the Directorate of Enforcement ( DoE ) initiated an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) against the applicant, Sandeepa Virk, only in August 2025—nine years after the initial police case. The DoE alleged that the applicant laundered "proceeds of crime" through fake e-commerce ventures and luxury real estate acquisitions in Mumbai and Delhi.

The Arguments: Predicate Offence vs. Independent Laundering

The applicant’s defense, led by Senior Advocate Anurag Alhuwalia, argued that Virk was never charge-sheeted in the predicate police case, nor was cognizance taken against her by the Magistrate in a subsequent private complaint. They characterized her arrest as "selective and arbitrary," noting that the principal accused remains at large while she, a woman with societal roots, faced a stalled trial.

Conversely, the DoE maintained that money laundering is an independent offense. Counsel for the DoE argued that the applicant knowingly received over ₹1 crore in tainted funds and utilized them for high-value properties. They further contended that the proviso under Section 45 does not guarantee automatic bail but rather grants the court discretionary authority that should be exercised judiciously based on the gravity of the offense.

Legal Analysis: The Gender Proviso

The Court’s analysis hinged on the interpretation of the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA . Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement , Justice Sharma reaffirmed that for female applicants, the stringent twin conditions of Section 45(1)(ii) do not strictly apply. The Court observed:

> "It stands settled that in the case of a woman accused, the embargo of the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA can be relaxed, and the application for bail can be considered on general principles governing grant of bail, albeit keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations."

Key Observations

The judgment focused on the "cumulative effect" of the circumstances, noting:

• On the Lapse of Time: "The present proceedings under the PMLA were initiated much later, with the ECIR being recorded only in the year 2025, almost a decade after the alleged transactions."
• On the Nature of Charges: "The record reflects that the applicant was not found culpable at the stage of police investigation, nor was any prima facie case found against her by the learned Magistrate."
• On Judicial Custody: "Considering the cumulative effect of these circumstances... this Court finds no ground to further keep the applicant in judicial custody."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The Delhi High Court ordered the release of Sandeepa Virk upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties. The Court imposed standard conditions, including the surrender of her passport and a mandatory requirement to update the Investigation Officer regarding her residence and contact details.

This ruling offers a critical precedent for legal professionals, reinforcing that while PMLA offenses are viewed with extreme severity, the legislative intent behind the gender-based waiver in Section 45 remains a vital check on prolonged detention. For future cases, this signals that prosecution must present compelling, immediate justifications for continued custody, especially when the accused—like in this instance—wasn't a primary party in the predicate criminal complaint.