- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Directorate Of Enforcement Petitioner(s) v. Preeti Chandra (s).
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arises from an order dated 14 June 2023 by the High Court granting bail to the respondent, an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The State sought to challenge this order through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court of India. The respondent had already spent more than 620 days in custody when the High Court exercised its discretion to release her on bail subject to several stringent conditions, including relinquishment of her Dominican Republic citizenship. The present Supreme Court decision addresses whether that bail order should be interfered with and, if not, what further safeguards should be imposed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in light of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and the respondent’s status as a woman, the High Court’s discretionary grant of bail was justified.
- Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its powers under Article 136 to cancel or modify the bail granted by the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 | Interpretation of proviso to Section 437 CrPC: persons in special categories (including women) are not automatically entitled to bail; discretion must still be exercised judiciously. | Used to explain that, although Section 45 PMLA gives courts discretion to grant bail to a woman, such discretion is not mechanical but must consider relevant factors. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had already exercised this discretion properly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court observed that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA specifically allows a court to grant bail to a woman accused, mirroring the structure of Section 437 CrPC. Relying on Prahlad Singh Bhati, the Court clarified that this proviso gives discretion rather than an absolute mandate.
2. The Court distinguished between considerations relevant to an original bail application and those pertinent to cancellation of bail. Cancellation requires a higher threshold, focusing on post-release conduct or supervening circumstances, none of which were alleged.
3. It took note that the respondent had already spent over 620 days in custody, and that the High Court had imposed extensive conditions ensuring her availability for investigation and trial.
4. Finding no compelling reason to disturb the High Court's exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 but decided to impose additional safeguards—restricting the respondent’s movement to the National Capital Region, requiring bi-weekly reporting to the Investigating Officer, and prohibiting disposal of property without Special Court permission.
5. The Court recorded an undertaking by the respondent’s senior counsel that she had already initiated the process of relinquishing her Dominican Republic citizenship and would apply for Indian citizenship. Compliance was directed to be reported within a fortnight to the Special Judge.
Holding and Implications
The Special Leave Petition was DISPOSED OF. The Supreme Court sustained the High Court’s order granting bail while adding further conditions on travel, reporting, and disposal of property.
Implications: The respondent remains on bail under both the High Court’s original conditions and the Supreme Court’s additional safeguards. The decision underscores that, although the PMLA’s proviso facilitates bail for women, judicial discretion remains paramount. No new precedent has been set beyond reinforcing established principles governing discretionary bail and the higher standard required for its cancellation.
1. The High Court by its impugned order dated 14 June 2023 granted bail to the respondent subject to the following terms and conditions:
“a) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond with a surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
b) The applicant shall give up her citizenship of Dominican Republic within a period of 1 week from the date of release and documentary proof of the same be placed before the learned Trial Court;
c) The applicant shall not leave the country during the bail period and surrender her Dominican Republic passport at the time of release before the Trial Court;
d) The applicant shall join the investigation as and when called by the I.O. concerned;
e) The applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing;
f) The applicant shall provide her mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned at the time of release, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The applicant shall not switch off, or change the same without prior intimation to the IO concerned, during the period of bail;
g) In case she changes her address, she will inform the IO concerned and this Court also;
h) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the bail period.
i) The applicant shall not communicate with or intimidate or influence any of the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case.”
2. The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory provision does not mean that person specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be released on bail. [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280].
3. Considerations which weigh in the grant of bail are distinct from those which are relevant to the adjudication of an application for cancellation of bail. The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. In addition to the terms and conditions which have been imposed by the High Court, we direct that:
(i) The respondent shall not leave the limits of the NCR region;
(ii) The respondent shall report once every two weeks to the Investigating Officer; and
(iii) The respondent shall not dispose of any property without specific permission of the Special Court.
5. Mr. Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that in compliance of the order of the High Court, the respondent has already applied for relinquishing her citizenship of the Dominican Republic and unconditionally undertakes to relinquish her citizenship. She shall do so forthwith and report compliance within a fortnight to the Special Judge. In that view of the matter, it has been stated by learned senior counsel that the respondent would apply for citizenship to the Indian authorities. The application may be processed in accordance with law.
6. Subject to the above, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Alert