The Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA Provides Special Treatment to Women in Bail Applications: Delhi High Court

“Considering the totality of the circumstances...the Applicant is admitted to regular bail...the Applicant is a woman who is entitled to bail under Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA 2002.” – Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court.

The case involved Sukanya Mondal, a 31-year-old woman, who sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002. Mondal had been in judicial custody since April 26, 2023, due to her alleged involvement in a money laundering case related to cross-border cattle smuggling. The case was initiated after a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry revealed a bribery network that facilitated cattle smuggling between India and Bangladesh. Mondal was accused of laundering money through various businesses, allegedly acting on behalf of her father, Anubrata Mondal, a prominent figure in the scandal.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) accused Sukanya Mondal of laundering approximately ₹120 million through several companies, allegedly using the proceeds of crime derived from her father’s illegal activities in the cattle smuggling operation. Although Mondal claimed to be a schoolteacher, evidence suggested her involvement in the financial operations of these businesses.

Mondal was arrested based on the findings of the CBI's investigation, which led to multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act against various individuals. The ED, building on the CBI’s findings, charged Mondal under PMLA for facilitating money laundering through multiple entities.

Mondal’s legal team argued that her prolonged detention amounted to pre-trial conviction and that the investigation was complete, meaning there was no risk of her interfering with evidence. They invoked the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, which provides special treatment for women and other vulnerable categories in bail applications, arguing that Mondal, a single woman with health issues, should be granted bail.

Furthermore, Mondal claimed there was no direct link between her and the cattle smuggling operation, suggesting that she was being scapegoated due to her father’s involvement.

The ED contested the bail application, stating that Mondal had actively laundered funds through benami transactions and controlled various businesses where proceeds of crime were deposited. They argued that her release could jeopardize the investigation and that she had not fully cooperated with authorities.

The ED also dismissed her health concerns, stating that her medical condition was not urgent enough to warrant special consideration.

Mondal’s defense relied on several court decisions, such as Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) and Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), to emphasize the importance of considering the presumption of innocence and the special provisions for women under the PMLA. They highlighted that other co-accused had been granted bail, invoking the doctrine of parity.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that Mondal was not an accused in the predicate offense of cattle smuggling but was implicated for laundering proceeds of the crime. The court emphasized that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, even in cases involving stringent bail provisions under special statutes like PMLA.

The court referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), which emphasized that women, as a vulnerable category, are entitled to special consideration for bail under Section 45 of PMLA. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, it also highlighted the voluminous nature of the evidence and the potential for a protracted trial.

Considering the special provisions for women under Section 45 of PMLA, Mondal’s prolonged incarceration, and the low risk of her tampering with evidence, the court granted her regular bail. She was required to post a personal bond of ₹1,000,000 and adhere to several conditions, including regular appearances in court and cooperation with investigators.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2024​.

Sukanya Mondal vs. Directorate of Enforcement