Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement[i], decided on a Bail appeal filed by Kalvakuntla Kavitha (‘Appellant’), who was denied bail by the Delhi High Court on the grounds that since the Appellant was a highly qualified and well-accomplished woman therefore not entitled to beneficiary provision for women under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). The prosecution agencies, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) and the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’), had levelled charges of corruption and money laundering against the Appellant, which required them to satisfy the twin conditions under the PMLA for granting bail.
Facts
The CBI had registered a case under s. 120B read with s. 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’), alleging criminal conspiracy in formulating Delhi’s Excise Policy of 2021-2022 by intentionally creating or leaving loopholes in the policy to be exploited later.
During the investigation, the CBI issued notice to the Appellant under s. 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’); the Appellant did not respond.
Subsequently, the ED arrested the Appellant on 15.03.2024, wherefore the CBI interrogated the Appellant in judicial custody on 06.04.2024.
Further, the Appellant was arrested by the CBI on 11.04.2024 for active involvement in the Delhi liquor policy case and remanded to the CBI's custody.
The Appellant filed the bail applications on the grounds that a woman accused could be granted bail without having to satisfy the twin conditions under s. 45(1) of the PMLA.
The Delhi High Court denied bail to the Appellant on 01.07.2024 on the ground that the Appellant was not a ‘vulnerable woman’ for grant of special treatment under s. 45(1) of the PMLA after placing reliance on the decision of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement[ii].
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant and quashed the order passed by the Delhi High Court. It granted bail to the Appellant while making the following observations:
The custody of the Appellant was not necessary for the investigation, given that in both the cases filed by the CBI and the ED, the charge sheet and the complaint were filed before the Court.
The Supreme Court placed reliance on its order passed in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement[iii] to observe that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. It reiterated the principle that ‘bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.’
The proviso to s. 45(1) of the PMLA would entitle a woman to special treatment, and the order passed by the Delhi High Court denying bail while observing that the proviso to s. 45(1) is only applicable to ‘vulnerable woman’ is erroneous and misdirected.
Our Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must guide the interpretation of bail provisions, even under stringent statutes like the PMLA. This decision, along with recent jurisprudence following Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), signals a shift towards a more balanced approach to bail that upholds fundamental rights and prevents undue incarceration based on rigid statutory interpretations.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that bail provisions under s. 45 of the PMLA must be interpreted to protect fundamental rights. The Court highlighted that the legislature intended to provide relief to certain categories, such as women, without imposing additional criteria. This ruling serves as a reminder that legal interpretations should advance the purpose of the law and not restrict access to justice by undermining constitutional safeguards.
End Notes
[i] CRL. A. NO. 3522 OF 2024 : [2024] 165 taxmann.com 794 (SC).
[ii] (2024) 6 SCC 401.
[iii] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.
Authored by Maarij Ahmad, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.