Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
19. Day in and day out it is argued before us on behalf of the prosecution that merely because an accused has a special status in terms of he/she being a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly or a Minister or a Chief Minister, etc., they should not be given a special treatment and should be treated equally as any other accused.
20. However, the learned Single Judge in the present case, while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, comes to a “heartening conclusion” that the appellant is highly qualified and a well-accomplished person. The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellant has made significant contributions to politics and social work. The learned Single Judge further observed that while deciding her bail application, the Court may appreciate her accomplishment, however, it cannot lose sight of the serious allegations levelled by the prosecution and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation and presented before the Court.
21. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeds to observe that the present appellant cannot be equated to a “vulnerable woman”.
22. We find that the learned Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”.
23. We further find that the learned Single Judge totally misapplied the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement.2
24. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) would show that this Court has observed that the Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts. The Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime.
25. No doubt that this Court observes that nowadays the educated and well-placed women in the society engage themselves in commercial [2023] 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401 : 2023 INSC 1073 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement ventures and enterprises and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal activities. The Court therefore puts a caution that the Courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence.
26. This Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra), while paraphrasing proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA stated in paragraph 23 as follows: “23. ….. No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements …….”
27. This Court, in the carefully couched paragraph extracted above used the phrase “persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”. Further, this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
28. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
29. In the result, we allow these appeals, in the following terms:- (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos.1675 and 1739 of 2024 are quashed and set aside; (ii) The appellant is directed to be released forthwith on bail in connection with Complaint Case No.31 of 2022 arising out of ECIR/HIUII/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022, P.S. HIU, Directorate of Enforcement and RC-0032022A0053 dated 17.08.2022, P.S. CBI, ACB, on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in each of the cases; 726 (iii) The appellant shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; (iv) The appellant shall deposit her passport with the learned Trial Judge; and (v) The appellant shall regularly attend the Trial Court and cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial.
30. Though we have not observed anything on the merits of the matter, any observation in this judgment would not prejudice the trial.
31. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain