Woman Accused Under PMLA Is Exempt From Twin Conditions But Bail Depends On Facts, Not Gender Alone: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is similar in nomenclature and intent to that of Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., and are merely enabling provisions, and do not mean that the class(s) of person specified therein, should necessarily be released on bail." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that while a woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is exempt from the stringent "twin conditions" for bail, the statutory proviso is an enabling provision and does not confer an absolute or automatic right to liberty.

A bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that while creating sub-classifications among women based on education or socio-economic status is impermissible for applying the proviso, judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously based on the facts of each case.

The petitioner, Surabhi @ Surbhi Duhan, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on December 16, 2025, in connection with an ECIR registered under the PMLA. The ED alleged that she was a key controller of an organized transnational cyber-fraud call centre targeting United States citizens, generating proceeds of crime amounting to approximately ₹25 crores. A prosecution complaint was subsequently filed against her on January 27, 2026, before the trial court.

The primary question before the court was whether a woman accused under the PMLA is automatically entitled to regular bail by virtue of the first proviso to Section 45(1). The court was also called upon to determine the parameters for exercising judicial discretion when considering bail for a woman accused of a grave economic offense.

Statutory Exemption For Women

The court examined Section 45 of the PMLA alongside Section 437 of the CrPC and Section 480 of the BNSS. It noted that the first proviso explicitly exempts women, minors, and sick or infirm persons from satisfying the mandatory twin conditions of bail.

"The statutory exemption carved out under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA; is clear, explicit and unambiguous, in mandating that the statutory bar imposed by the 'twin conditions' does not apply to a woman accused seeking regular bail for an offence under PMLA."

No Sub-Classification Among Women

The bench held that the legislature used the term "woman" without qualification or exception. Applying the plain-meaning rule, the court ruled that judicial creation of sub-classifications based on education, professional standing, or socio-economic status is impermissible for determining the applicability of the proviso.

"The legislature has deliberately used the term 'woman' without qualification or exception. Applying the plain-meaning rule, the proviso applies universally to all women as a class."

Discretionary Nature Of The Proviso

The court observed that shifting from the mandatory "shall" in the main body of Section 45(1) to the permissive "may be" in the proviso demonstrates that the provision is enabling rather than an imperative command. The displacement of the twin conditions merely re-vests judicial discretion without guaranteeing an unconditional right to bail.

"The legal ambit of first proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA is strictly confined to exempting a woman-accused seeking regular bail, from meeting the burden of the 'twin conditions'. Lifting this statutory prohibition does not obliterate, supersede, or override the broader principles governing bail jurisprudence."

Application To Facts And Prolonged Incarceration

Evaluating the facts of the case, the court noted that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for more than seven months. The prosecution relied upon 73 witnesses and 111 documents running into 6,728 pages, and the trial was still at the pre-cognizance stage. The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be justified solely on the gravity of allegations when the conclusion of trial is not in sight.

"In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be subjected to incarceration for an indefinite period merely because the allegations against her are serious, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time."

The High Court allowed the regular bail petition, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Special Judge, including the furnishing of a demand draft, FDR, or bank guarantee worth ₹20 lakhs. The court clarified that nothing stated in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 07 August 2026