Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MADHURESH PRASAD
Jayshree Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. N. Singh learned Additional Solicitor General has made submissions on behalf of the Union of India.
2. The matter was earlier heard on 1st September, 2023 as a tied up matter and adjourned to today for further consideration.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 05 of 2021, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/04/2018, dated 24.05.2018, registered for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’).
4. Several First Information Reports (for brevity ‘FIR’) were lodged in connection with fraudulent transfers /misappropriation of huge sums of government money under a conspiracy between government officials and employees, Bank officials and employees, office bearers and members of Srijan Mahila Vikash Sahyog Samiti Limited (for brevity ‘SMVSSL’) and other accused persons, popularly known as “Srijan Scam”. The petitioner is made an accused in following such cases:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion to grant bail to women accused under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
The court established that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA provides discretion to grant bail to women accused, allowing for a more lenient approach in considering bail applications based on ....
The stringent conditions set by Section 45 of the P.M.L. Act for granting bail in money laundering cases were central to the court's decision.
Bail is to be denied in economic offenses when serious, substantiated evidence of money laundering exists, per provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
At the bail stage, the court is required to consider the prima facie case and is not allowed to meticulously examine the evidence. The court must maintain a delicate balance between judgment of acqui....
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article