The court held that while the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA may not apply due to the petitioner being a woman, the discretion to grant bail lies with the court based on the evidence of involvement in the crime.

ORDER :

1. On behalf of the accused-petitioner, the instant bail application has been preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with ECIR No. JPZO/03/2023, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’).

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2024, and the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA are not applicable in the present case as the accused is a woman. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bala v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No. 16260 of 2024, dated 15.01.2025.

3. It is also contended that the petitioner has been in custody for more than eight months. The complaint relies on four predicate FIRs: FIR No. 227/2022, FIR No.747/2022, FIR No. 647/2022, and FIR No. 1289/2022. The petitioner is implicated only in FIR No. 227/2022, in which a supplementary charge sheet has been submitted against her. The charge sheet comprises voluminous documentary evidence, and the prosecution has submitted six supplementary charge sheets. There are 183 witnesses cited in all the supplementary charge sheets. Thus, the trial is going to take a considerable amount of time. It is also contended that without the conclusion of the trial in the predicate offence, the prosecution under PMLA cannot be concluded. To buttress his argument, the petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626. It is further contended that the petitioner had no knowledge that the other co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh, was involved in any criminal activity. The petitioner did not receive any amount from the co-accused Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in regular contact with Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh since the year 2010, as the sister of the co-accused Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh was engaged to the petitioner’s brother, and that she has known him since then. It is further contended that the allegation regarding the proceeds of crime in the present case is arbitrary and illogical. A property purchased in 2016 cannot constitute proceeds of crime allegedly generated in December 2022. Similarly, the property purchased on 15.07.2022 through a registered sale deed, annexed as Annexure 4, demonstrates that Rs. 35 lakhs were paid. The oral evidence contrary to the terms of a registered sale deed is expressly barred and rendered inadmissible under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both the properties were acquired before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime and, therefore, cannot be connected with the offence in question. It is also contended that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court construed the expression “proceeds of crime” to mean property obtained “as a result” of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The petitioner had a genuine source of income, and the transaction details of the petitioner’s savings bank account establish that the aforesaid properties were purchased bonafide and through accounted funds. Similarly, it is contended that the cash deposited in the petitioner’s account is not related to the alleged proceeds of crime and pertains to the period from 2005 to 2022, i.e., before the occurrence of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no recovery was made, nor was any incriminating document seized from the petitioner's residential premises. The alleged amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from a plot of land belonging to the petitioner’s father, at the instance of Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh, and the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In view of the fore