DOES THE BAIL CONCESSION FOR WOMEN ALSO APPLY TO ‘WOMEN WITH AGENCY’?

DO THE stringent bail provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) contain an exception for women? A delhi court is set to de ci deb ha rat rash tr a Samithi leader K Kavitha’s plea for bail on this ground in the Delhi excise scam case.

What is the bail provision in PMLA?

Section 45 provides for bail on money laundering charges. This provision in the law, like the stringent bail standard in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), puts the onus on the accused to prove that there is no prima facie case against them while seeking bail.

Section 45(1) reads: “No person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

However, there is a crucial exception to the bail standard. “Provided that a person, who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs,” the law says. This exception is similar to exemptions under the Indian Penal Code for women and minors.

What is the legal precedent?

In 2023, Delhi High Court granted bail to 49-year-old Preeti Chandra, wife of Sanjay Chandra, who was the Director of M/s Unitech Group, underlining the exception for women.

The ED, like in Kavitha’s case, had made an argument that the accused was not a “household lady”. However, the HC said that the PMLA or the Constitution does not make a distinction between a household lady, a businesswoman, or a political figure.

“...To argue what kind of woman is entitled to fall within the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA by creating an adhoc illusionary sub-classification of educated women, business women, women belonging to high social strata, within the broader classification of “woman”...is misconceived,” the court said.

However, the court added a qualifier that the accused cannot be a “flight risk” or “tamper witnesses” to be eligible for bail. (Preeti Chandra vs Directorate of Enforcement, June 14, 2023)

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kavitha, relied on this ruling and argued that his client is entitled to interim bail. The court has reserved its verdict.