Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2024 INSC 632 – S 45 PMLA –

PMLA 2002; Section 45(1)- In a given case the accused even if a woman may not be automatically entitled to benefit of the said proviso and it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case- When a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied- Referred to Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401 : 2023 INSC 1073 – This Court used the phrase “persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”. Further, this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. (Para 27) [Granting bail to appellant, SC observed that erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”]

PMLA 2002; Section 45 – Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial- “Bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”- The fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions – Referrred to Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595. (Para 12-13)