PMLA Bail Proviso for Women Not Limited to the Vulnerable: Supreme Court Grants K. Kavitha Bail

The appeals challenged the Delhi High Court's order of 1 July 2024 refusing the appellant bail in Bail Application Nos. 1675 and 1739 of 2024 (para 2). For her it was submitted that the CBI charge-sheet and the ED complaint had been filed, that, as in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, about 493 witnesses and some 50,000 pages of documents awaited trial, that nothing was recovered from her, and that as a woman she was entitled to the proviso to Section 45(1) (paras 5-6). The Additional Solicitor General alleged a leading role, destruction of evidence by formatting her mobile phone and influencing of a witness (paras 7-9).

At the ASG's suggestion the Court avoided discussing the merits (paras 3-4). As the charge-sheet and complaint had been filed, custody was not necessary for investigation (para 10). She had been in custody for five months, and with about 493 witnesses and 50,000 pages the trial could not end in the near future (para 11). Following Manish Sisodia, prolonged incarceration before conviction "should not be permitted to become punishment without trial"; bail is the rule, and the Article 21 right to liberty is superior to statutory restrictions (paras 12-13). The proviso lets a woman be released without the twin requirement of Section 45; it is not automatic and depends on each case's facts, but a court denying a benefit the statute gives a category must give specific reasons (paras 14-17). The High Court praised her as highly qualified and accomplished, then held she could not be equated to a vulnerable woman (paras 18, 20-21). That was erroneous and misapplied Saumya Chaurasia, which spoke of women "likely to be more vulnerable" and does not deny the proviso to a highly educated woman or a legislator (paras 22-28).