Woman Accused Under PMLA Entitled to Bail Upon Completing One-Half of Maximum Sentence Under BNSS Section 479.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA to bypass the "twin conditions" for bail

The court held

The court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 and that the petitioner qualifies for statutory relief under the PMLA proviso and Section 479 BNSS

It also directed

The petitioner was granted regular bail subject to a personal bond of ₹10,00,000, two sureties, the surrender of her passport, and conditions to ensure her presence during trial

01Facts

The petitioner, wife of Sukesh Chandrasekhar, seeks regular bail in a money laundering case (ECIR/54/DLZO-II/2021) involving the extortion of over ₹200 crores from one Aditi Singh

pp. 2-3

It is alleged that the petitioner operated five proprietorship firms to layer and utilize proceeds of crime, including the purchase of 16 luxury vehicles and booking chartered flights worth ₹7.29 crores

pp. 5-6

The petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2021 and has remained in judicial custody for over four years and six months

p. 7, 15

The investigation involved six prosecution complaints against 18 accused persons, with 311 witnesses cited, while the trial remains at the stage of arguments on charge

pp. 7-8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA to bypass the "twin conditions" for bail

¶ 7-10

ii.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 479 of the BNSS (formerly Section 436A CrPC) for undergoing detention for more than half of the maximum seven-year sentence

¶ 11-15

iii.3. Whether Section 479(2) of the BNSS creates an absolute bar to bail because the petitioner is involved in multiple pending cases

¶ 19-25

iv.4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who have already been released

¶ 28-34

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which grants judicial discretion to release women on bail without meeting the stringent "twin conditions"

pp. 10-11

Statement identifying Section 479 of the BNSS, which mandates bail for undertrials who have served half their maximum sentence

pp. 13-14

Doctrine derived from K. Kavitha v. ED [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269] and Saumya Chaurasia v. ED [(2024) 6 SCC 401] to establish that this benefit is available to all women, not just "vulnerable" ones

pp. 11-12

Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 451] regarding the right to a speedy trial under Article 21

pp. 14-15

Provisions in the judgment · 26 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 Section 3 Section 4 Section 45 Section 50

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 479 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 11 provisions

Section 34 Section 170 Section 201 Section 384 Section 386 Section 388 Section 406 Section 409 Section 419 Section 420 Section 506

Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 Section 3 Section 21

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 Section 12 Section 13

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 Section 3 Section 4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 436

04Reasoning

The court found that the petitioner, as a woman, qualifies for the statutory exception under Section 45 PMLA, noting that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot oust this protection

¶ 10

Regarding Section 479 BNSS, the court determined the petitioner had completed over 4.5 years of a maximum 7-year sentence (approx. two-thirds), significantly exceeding the 50% threshold

¶ 15, 26

The court rejected the ED's argument on delay, noting that the filing of five supplementary complaints over three years by the prosecution was the primary cause of the trial's stagnation

¶ 18

Interpreting Section 479(2) BNSS harmoniously with Article 21, the court ruled that the pendency of other cases (where she is already on bail) does not create an absolute bar to the relief of bail under the custody threshold

¶ 25-26

The court noted that co-accused individuals with similar or more significant roles, such as the principal hawala operator and a fellow beneficiary (Jacqueline Fernandez), had already been granted bail

¶ 29-34

05Holding

¶ 35-36

The petitioner was granted regular bail subject to a personal bond of ₹10,00,000, two sureties, the surrender of her passport, and conditions to ensure her presence during trial

¶ 37

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF