Female accused entitled to special treatment for bail under PMLA proviso despite strict Section 45 restrictions.

The applicant, Dr. Komal Khanna, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest in ECIR/SHSZO/03/2023 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

The case originated from FIR No. 4/19 registered by the State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau against Nishant Sareen (a public servant) for corruption, where the applicant was later co-accused under Section 12 of the PC Act for allegedly facilitating the laundering of ill-gotten gains.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that the applicant acted as a "proxy" or "front face" for Sareen in a partnership firm, M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, to disguise proceeds of crime.

The ED further relied on allegations by one Jagbir Singh, who claimed he was coerced into the partnership and that his shares were fraudulently reduced from 50% to 5%.

The applicant contended she was a bona fide investor, that Jagbir Singh was an unreliable witness with several FIRs against him, and that a cancellation report had been filed in the predicate FIR (No. 215/2022) lodged by Singh.

The court primarily applied Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which mandates "twin conditions" for bail: (i) the Public Prosecutor must be heard, and (ii) the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.

The first proviso to Section 45(1), which grants judicial discretion to release a person on bail if they are under sixteen, a woman, sick, or infirm.

Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 INSC 1073], which held that while the proviso is not mandatory, courts should be sensitive toward women.

Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269], which established that women are entitled to "special treatment" and specific reasons must be given if the benefit of the proviso is denied.

The Court analyzed the "star witness" Jagbir Singh’s credibility, noting significant inconsistencies across his various legal actions.

In his civil suit, Singh did not allege the "coercion" or "threats" he mentioned in his Section 164 CrPC statement and the ED investigation.

The court noted that the police had filed a cancellation report regarding the specific allegations of forgery (FIR 215/2022) that formed a core part of the ED’s case.

Applying the Saumya Chaurasia and Kavitha doctrines, the Court determined that as a woman and a single mother who had joined the investigation on 12 occasions, the applicant's case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion under the Section 45 proviso.

The Court found that the special treatment afforded to women by the statute outweighed the ED's objections, especially given the fluctuating stands of the primary witness.

The High Court allowed the application and made the interim bail order absolute, directing that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including joining the investigation when called, not leaving India without permission, and attending every trial hearing.