Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court's recent interpretation of bail provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,1966 (PMLA) has brought significant attention to Section 45's exception clause for women. The case of Shashi Bala v. Enforcement Directorate (2025) discusses the application of bail under exceptions, particularly concerning the interpretation of vulnerability and gender-based considerations in money laundering cases. The Supreme Court's criticism of the ED's stance against statutory provisions marks a crucial development in PMLA jurisprudence. 

What is Section 45 of PMLA and Exception? 

• Primary bail conditions under Section 45(1) stipulate:  
  • The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application 
  • If opposed, the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is not guilty 
  • The Court must believe the accused is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail 
• Exception Clause states:  
  • Special provisions exist for three categories:  
    • persons under sixteen years,  
    • women, and  
    • sick or infirm individuals 
  • These categories may be granted bail if the Special Court directs 
  • The exception creates a separate consideration framework for these vulnerable groups 

What was Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement and Observations? 

• Case Background:  
  • Shashi Bala, a government schoolteacher, was accused of aiding Shine City Group in a money laundering scam 
  • She allegedly received over Rs 36 lakh and acted as main confidant to Rasheed Naseem 
  • Initially arrested in November 2023 
• Legal Journey:  
  • Allahabad High Court denied bail in September 2024 
  • High Court ruled she wasn't a "vulnerable woman" despite the statutory exception 
  • Supreme Court criticized ED's stance against applying the women's exception 
• Supreme Court Observations:  
  • Bench of Justices A S Oka and Augustine George Masih granted bail 
  • Court strongly criticized ED for arguing contrary to statutory provisions 
  • the importance of adhering to legislative intent 

What are other Referenced Cases and Observations? 

• Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court, June 2023) 
  • Court granted bail to Preeti Chandra, wife of Unitech Group Director 
  • Rejected ED's argument about "household lady" classification 
  • Held that creating sub-classifications within "woman" category was misconceived 
  • Established that bail could be denied if accused is flight risk or might tamper with witnesses 
• K Kavitha v. CBI (Delhi Trial Court, April 2024):  
  • Court denied interim bail to BRS leader in Delhi excise scam 
  • Observed that following the exception wasn't "obligatory" or "mandatory" 
  • Noted that being "well-educated" and "well-placed" excluded from vulnerability 
  • However, Supreme Court subsequently granted bail 

Conclusion 

The evolving interpretation of Section 45's exception clause under PMLA reflects a complex judicial discourse on gender-based considerations in economic offenses. The Supreme Court's recent stance in the Shashi Bala case suggests a move toward strict adherence to statutory provisions, particularly concerning exceptions for women accused. This development may significantly impact future PMLA cases involving female accused, potentially standardizing the application of the exception clause across courts.