IMPORTANT POINT
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 individual circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

Heard Mr. S. D. Sanjay learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mohit Agrwal 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 one such case:

(i) Special Case No. 11 of 2020 arising out of C.B.I. Case No. RC06(A)/2018) for the offences under Sections 34, 120(B), 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The offences being investigated were found to be scheduled offences, as per the provisions of PMLA and, accordingly, investigation was taken up by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), under the provisions of the PMLA for ascertaining the proceeds of crime and for filing complaints. The ECIR No. PTZO/04/2018, thus, came to be recorded against the SMVSSL and its office bearers, government officials and employees, bank officials and employees and others. Investigations revealed huge sums siphoned from the Government treasury and transferred to the Bank account of SMVSSL. Government officials were also found involved.

6. The petitioner is widow daughter-in-law of the prime accused late Manorma Devi and as per allegations found to have received pecuniary benefits from the proceeds of crime in the form of booking amount for a flat at Emerlad II/302 at Gardenia Glamour Sector-3, in Ghaziabad, in the name of petitioner’s daughter, namely, Aastha Lal. An amount of Rs. 6.97 lakhs was used for the purchase of a car, which was paid by late Manorma Devi. Petitioner has also acquired landed properties and there are withdrawals from the account of ‘SMVSSL’. She was an executive member of ‘SMVSSL’ and knowingly involved in concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting and claiming the proceeds of crime as tainted property. The alleged receipt of pecuniary benefits by the petitioner emerging during course of investigation in the charge-sheet, runs into crores of Rupees. The said flat was alleged to have been acquired out of the proceeds of crime, and were attached by a provisional attachment order on 29-05-2020.

7. Thereafter, Original Complaint No. 1313 of 2020 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 26/06/2020 for confirmation of the provisional attachment order in compliance with the principles of natural justice, inherent under Section 8 (1) of the PMLA. The same was, subsequently, confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA. The prosecution complaint vide Special Case No. 5 of 2021 was then filed before the Special Court on 04/10/2021, in which, cognizance has been taken on 04/10/2021 itself. The petitioner was, at that point of time, already in custody in the predicate offence.

8. In this case, she is in custody since 04/02/2022. Her prayer for bail was rejected by the Special Judge on 29/09/2022. She is, thus, before this Court.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that late Manorma Devi was her mother-in-law. Her husband late Pranay Kumar was a Government servant in the Indian Institute of Natural Resins and Gums at Ranchi, who had got sufficient earning from his salar