Summary
The Supreme Court refused bail in a money-laundering case concerning an alleged coal-levy extortion syndicate. The proviso for women in Section 45 confers judicial discretion rather than an automatic entitlement. The Court found prima facie evidence of involvement, rejected the claimed disappearance of the predicate offence, and imposed costs for misrepresentation in the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the proviso for women in Section 45.
- Whether the predicate scheduled offence had ceased to exist.
- Whether the SLP misrepresented the material before the High Court.
Provisions considered
- Section 45(1) and first proviso, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The Court applied the stringent bail framework and held that the proviso permits, but does not compel, release of a woman. Involvement and evidence remained material to the exercise of discretion. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Section 3, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The alleged fund movements and property acquisitions disclosed prima facie involvement in money laundering. The predicate offence had not been finally extinguished by a competent court. (¶¶ 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Order XXI, Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 2013SLP pleadings and the advocate’s certificate must accurately reflect the record below. The Court deprecated blaming the High Court for not considering material that had not formed part of the arguments before it. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Held
- The first proviso to Section 45 requires a judicious assessment of the particular case. Courts should be sensitive to the protected categories, but the word “may” does not require automatic release. The nature of the evidence and extent of alleged involvement remain relevant. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The investigative material describing relationships, movement of alleged extortion funds and acquisition of properties provided a prima facie basis to refuse bail. These were bail-stage findings, rather than a final adjudication of guilt. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 25)
- The police report did not conclusively eliminate the scheduled offence: it referred the alleged extortion in Chhattisgarh for appropriate action. No competent court had discharged, acquitted or quashed the predicate case. The asserted jurisdictional failure was therefore not established. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Parties must disclose material facts accurately and advocates must verify the record. The certificate and affidavits carried legal significance; the misleading attack on the High Court and evasive subsequent affidavit justified condemnation and costs. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30)
Result
Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.1 lakh, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. Refusal of bail was upheld.