Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA Exempts Women from Twin Condition Rigours: Delhi High Court Grants Bail - 2025-12-27

Bail Granted: Delhi High Court Clarifies Protections for Women Under PMLA

In a significant judgment regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) , the Delhi High Court has clarified the application of the statutory proviso regarding the release of female accused on bail. Presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, the Court granted bail to petitioner Sandeepa Virk, emphasizing that the rigours of the "twin conditions" for bail under Section 45 are relaxed for women.

Case Background: From Film Roles to Financial Scrutiny

The case originated from a 2016 FIR filed at PS Phase-8, SAS Nagar, involving allegations that the complainant was duped of approximately ₹6 crore by co-accused Amit Gupta and others on the pretext of casting her as a lead actress in a motion picture. While the predicate offence dealt with cheating and criminal breach of trust, the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) initiated an ECIR in August 2025, alleging that the petitioner had laundered proceeds of this crime through a fictitious e-commerce website and high-value property acquisitions.

The petitioner, arrested in August 2025, maintained that she was never named in the original police investigation nor summoned by the Magistrate in the private complaint proceedings.

The Legal Tug-of-War

Counsel for the petitioner argued that her arrest was arbitrary, especially given the nine-year gap between the predicate offence and the recording of the ECIR. They contended that as a woman, she falls under the protective shield of the first proviso to Section 45, which allows the Court to exercise its discretion in granting bail without adhering to the stringent twin conditions often applied to PMLA cases.

The Directorate of Enforcement countered sharply, arguing that money laundering is an independent, continuing offence. They asserted that the petitioner received tainted funds directly into her bank accounts and subsequently acquired luxury properties, framing her as an active participant in the "projection" of proceeds of crime as untainted assets.

Key Observations: The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s analysis rested on both the statutory interpretation of the PMLA and the factual inconsistencies presented by the prosecution.

The Court drew heavily from the Supreme Court's ruling in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement , noting: > "On its plain reading, the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA . Therefore, when a woman applies for bail, the twin conditions in clause (ii) need not be satisfied."

Further scrutinizing the State’s case, the Court observed: > "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 in the private complaint proceedings."

Highlighting the delayed nature of the proceedings, the Court remarked: > "Considering the cumulative effect of these circumstances... this Court finds no ground to further keep the applicant in judicial custody."

The Verdict and Future Implications

Finding that the main accused remained a proclaimed offender while the petitioner had already faced four months of incarceration, the Court ordered her release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 and two sureties.

The ruling serves as a vital reminder that while the PMLA is a robust statute designed to curb financial crimes, it operates within the framework of constitutional safeguards. The clarification on the proviso for women accused provides a clear trajectory for lower courts, reaffirming that gender acts as a significant factor in balancing the state’s interest in prosecution with the individual’s right to liberty.

The judgment, while specific to the facts at hand, reinforces that "independent" money laundering charges must still stand on a solid evidentiary foundation, particularly when the accused has had no previous involvement in the predicate offence.