Supreme Court Declines Bail to Educated Women in Money Laundering Cases: First Proviso to Section 45 Not a Mandate

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court denied bail to Saumya Chaurasia, the former deputy secretary to ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, involved in a money laundering case. The court’s decision highlighted a crucial observation: the court is not obligated to grant bail solely based on the accused being a woman. The court scrutinized the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, emphasizing its discretionary nature.

The verdict addressed the evolving landscape where educated and well-placed women are increasingly participating in commercial ventures, sometimes finding themselves inadvertently involved in unlawful activities. Contrary to interpreting the first proviso as mandatory, the court stressed the importance of considering factors such as the extent of involvement and nature of evidence when exercising discretion under this provision.

The bench, comprised of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, deliberated on the applicability of the first proviso to Saumya Chaurasia’s case. The provision allows the court discretion in granting bail to women and certain other categories under specific circumstances. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of this provision, cautioning against interpreting it as obligatory to prevent potential misuse.

While acknowledging the need for sensitivity and sympathy toward vulnerable categories, the court warned against blindly granting the benefit of the first proviso, citing potential misuse. The judgment emphasized the judicious exercise of discretion, taking into account factors such as the accused’s involvement in the alleged offense and the nature of evidence collected by investigating agencies.

In the specific case of Saumya Chaurasia, the court found sufficient evidence of her active involvement in the money laundering offense. The order stated, “There is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said offense, and the special benefit contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted.”

This ruling sheds light on the nuanced approach courts should adopt when considering bail for women and other vulnerable categories under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.