Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Bail Exception for Women, Criticizes ED’s Misinterpretation of PMLA

(Source – Indian Express, Section – Explained- Page No. – 11)

Analysis of the news:

Bail Provisions Under PMLA

• Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the accused to prove no prima facie case against them. 
• However, an exception exists for women, minors, and the sick or infirm, allowing for bail at the discretion of the Special Court. 
• This exception aligns with similar exemptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Legal Precedents on Women’s Bail Exception

• Delhi High Court (2023): In Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court rejected attempts to restrict the exception for women based on socio-economic status or education level, affirming the broad application of the law.
• K Kavitha Case (2024): A trial court denied bail, citing the accused’s education and societal position. However, the Supreme Court later overruled this decision.

These cases highlight judicial inconsistency in interpreting the exception for women under PMLA.

Case Analysis: Shashi Bala

• Shashi Bala, accused of assisting the Shine City Group in laundering ₹36 lakh, was arrested in 2023. 
• The Allahabad High Court denied her bail, arguing she was not a “vulnerable” woman under the PMLA exception. 
• The Supreme Court rejected the ED’s argument, emphasizing that the law does not differentiate among women based on social or economic factors.

Judicial Observations

• Justice Oka criticized the ED’s argument, stating, “We will not tolerate conduct…contrary to statute.” 
• The SC underscored that statutory exceptions must be uniformly applied without arbitrary classifications, ensuring the rule of law prevails.

Conclusion

• The Shashi Bala case underscores the need for consistent judicial interpretation of PMLA provisions. 
• The Supreme Court’s stance reinforces the importance of statutory safeguards for women, emphasizing the principle of equal access to justice.