Introduction

Recently, a trial court in Delhi has made a verdict regarding the interpretation and application of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This decision leads to extension of judicial custody of K Kavitha of Bharat Rashtra Samithi.

What is Section 45 of PMLA?

• Section 45 of the PMLA delineates the conditions under which bail can be granted to individuals accused of money laundering offenses.
• Similar to the stringent bail standards observed in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), this provision places the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate the absence of a prima facie case against them when seeking bail.

What is Crucial Exception of Section 45 of PMLA?

• While Section 45 imposes strict criteria for bail, it also includes a vital exception, particularly for women.
• According to this exception, individuals who fall under certain categories, such as women, minors, or those who are sick or infirm, may be granted bail if directed by the Special Court.
• This provision mirrors exemptions found in the Indian Penal Code concerning women and minors.

What was the Precedent Cited by Delhi Court?

• A notable legal precedent of Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) covered the exception for women under Section 45 of PMLA.
• Despite arguments from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) questioning the eligibility of the accused as a "household lady," the Delhi High Court clarified that such distinctions were unfounded.
• The court emphasized that the exception applies irrespective of the accused's background or social status, provided they do not pose flight risks or threaten witnesses.

What was the Court’s Opinion?

• In the recent case involving Kavitha, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi invoked the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Preeti Chandra's case to advocate for Kavitha's interim bail.
• However, Judge deviated from the argument presented by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, asserting that Kavitha's education and societal status precluded her from being categorized as a vulnerable woman eligible for the exception under the PMLA.
• Judge relied on the criteria established in the Preeti Chandra case, emphasizing the three conditions under which bail could be denied to women, despite the provision in Section 45.
  • These conditions necessitate that the accused not pose a flight risk, engage in tampering with evidence, or influence witnesses.

What is the Position of Material Evidence and Witness Influence?

• In Kavitha's case, the court noted evidence suggesting her involvement in the destruction of material evidence and the potential influence exerted over witnesses.
• Consequently, Judge concluded that granting bail to Kavitha could jeopardize the integrity of the investigation and the legal process.

Conclusion

The recent decision by the trial court regarding the interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA highlights the complexities inherent in balancing legal provisions with individual circumstances. While the exception for women in the Act is pivotal, courts must meticulously assess each case to ensure justice prevails without compromising the integrity of legal proceedings.