PMLA | S.45 Bail Exception Applies To All Women, No Distinction Based On Education, Status Or Profession: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts all women, as a class, from the rigours of the "twin conditions" for bail, and that any judicial attempt to exclude educated, professionally placed or socially influential women from the benefit of the proviso would amount to impermissible judicial legislation. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 266]Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) makes all offenses under the act cognizable and non-bailable. It sets strict "twin conditions" that an accused must clear to secure bail.i) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; andii) 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:Provided that a person, who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupeesJustice Sumeet Goel, while granting regular bail to a woman accused of laundering proceeds of a ₹25 crore transnational cyber-fraud call centre operation, observed:"Since, the legislature chose not to qualify the term 'woman', any attempt by the Court to carve out sub-categories, such as excluding educated, and professionally employed, etc. women from the purview of the proviso, would tantamount to impermissible judicial legislation and statutory supplanting."The Court, however, drew a careful line between the applicability of the proviso and the exercise of discretion under it, holding that while education, official standing and socio-economic influence are irrelevant to whether the twin conditions stand displaced, those very factors remain live considerations when the bail plea is decided on merits.The Court highlighted, "Pertinently, the statutory command in the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, is categoric: it exempts all women as a class from the stringent operation of the "twin conditions" without drawing any statutory distinction based on education, professional standing, social status, or societal exposure."Violation Of Article 15(3)"Since, the legislature chose not to qualify the term "woman", any attempt by the Court to carve out sub-categories, such as excluding educated, and professionally employed, etc. women from the purview of the proviso, would tantamount to impermissible judicial legislation and statutory supplanting. Ergo, as far as the initial applicability of the proviso is concerned, creating sub-classifications within the protected group runs contrary to the constitutional ethos of Article 15(3) and violates the plain-meaning rule of statutory interpretation, as enshrined in the maxim absoluta sententia expositor non indigent, i.e. where the language is plain, it requires no construction," it added.The Court clarified further that, "a vital legal distinction must be drawn between the applicability of the proviso and the ultimate exercise of judicial discretion under it. While factors such as education, high official standing, socio-economic influence, and the specific role played in the offence are irrelevant (in case of a woman) for deciding whether the “twin conditions” stand displaced, they nevertheless be taken into account, where relevant, while adjudicating the bail plea on merits."It elucidated that, "it goes without saying that it is neither pragmatic nor feasible to lay any universal exhaustive yardstick or inexorable set of guidelines for adjudication of this aspect as every case has its own unique factual conspectus, which has to be taken into account by the Court which is in seisin of the matter he legislature has deliberately used the term "woman" without qualification or exception. Applying the plain-meaning rule, the proviso applies universally to all women as a class. Consequently, judicial creation of sub-classifications; whether based on education, professional standing, high official capacity, or socio-economic status; is impermissible as it would amount to statutory supplanting."The Judicial DiscretionThe Court said that, "intentional statutory shift from the mandatory imperative "shall" in the main body of Section 45(1) of PMLA to the permissive auxiliary expression "may be" in the first proviso thereof demonstrates that the dispensation is an enabling, discretionary provision rather than an imperative command. The proviso lifts the statutory bar of the twin conditions to re-vest judicial discretion in the court; it does not confer an absolute, automatic, unconditional or indefeasible right to bail solely on the basis of gender."Justice Goel opined that the, legal ambit of first proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA is strictly confined to exempting a woman-accused seeking regular bail, from meeting the burden of...

PMLA | S.45 Bail Exception Applies To All Women, No Distinction Based On Education, Status Or Profession: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

PMLA | S.45 Bail Exception Applies To All Women, No Distinction Based On Education, Status Or Profession: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers