The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed the bail plea of Saumya Chaurasia, who was the deputy secretary to former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in a money laundering case.
While doing so, the court made some important observations regarding the first provision to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court pointed out that the use of the word 'may be' in this provision indicates that it is discretionary and may be extended by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The court also emphasized the importance of considering factors such as the extent of involvement and the nature of evidence while exercising discretion under this provision and granting bail on the ground that an accused is a woman.
The court made it clear that the provision should not be interpreted as obligatory, as it could lead to potential misuse. While the court acknowledged the need for sensitivity towards women and other vulnerable groups, it also cautioned against assuming that educated and well-placed women are immune to engaging in illegal activities.
The court observed that these women may also engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities.
In the Chaurasia case, the court found sufficient evidence indicating her active involvement in the money laundering offense as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA.
Therefore, the court dismissed her bail plea, stating that there was nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said offense and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the appellant who is a lady.
The court's observations reiterate the need for courts to exercise discretion judiciously while granting bail to women and other vulnerable groups, taking into account the nature of the offense and the evidence against them.
