LexKALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 717 : 2024 INSC 632 Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 3522 of 2024) 27 August 2024. [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) of the PMLA to the applicant being a well educated and accomplished woman, who has remained Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Council. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 proviso – Beneficial treatment under s.45 proviso – Entitlement – Applicant-well educated and accomplished woman, has remained Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Council, was one of the chief conspirators in the entire conspiracy relating to formulation and implementation of new Excise Policy of Delhi – CBI case and ED case against her – Bail application – Rejected by the trial court as also the Single Judge of the High Court – Correctness: Held: Proviso to s.45(1) would entitle a woman for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered – Proviso permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement u/s.45 to be satisfied – Entitlement to the benefit is not automatic, it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – However, 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 – On facts, the Single Judge of the High Court totally misdirected itself while denying the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) to the applicant – Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to s.45(1) is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman” and that the applicant could not be equated to a “vulnerable woman” – Courts, while deciding such * Author 718 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports matters, should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence – Furthermore, it cannot be said that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) – Also, in CBI case charge sheet has been filed and in ED case complaint has been filed, as such the custody of the appellant not necessary for investigation – Appellant has been behind the bars for the last five months – There are about 493 witnesses to be examined and voluminous documents to be considered, the likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future is impossible – 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 – Fundamental right of liberty provided Art.21 is superior to the statutory restrictions – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge quashed and set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith on bail on furnishing bail bonds – Constitution of India – Art.21. [Paras 10-14, 16, 17-22, 24, 25, 27-29] Case Law Cited Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023] 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401 : 2023 INSC 1073 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) PMLA; Bail; Special treatment for women u/s.45(1) PMLA; Vulnerable woman. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3522 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2024 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in BA No. 1675 of 2024 With Criminal Appeal No. 3523 of 2024 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 719 Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement Appearances for Parties Mukul Rohatgi, Vikram Chaudhri, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Nitesh Rana, P. Mohith Rao, Ms. J. Akshitha, Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Deepak Nagar, Somanadri Goud .k, Shaik Sohil Akthar, Ms. Muskaan Khurana, Eugene S Philomene, Ashish Jacob Mathee, Varun Varma, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Shubam Rajhans, Nikhil Kohli, Nikhil Rohatgi, Keshav Sehgal, Shashank Khurana, Ms. Kalyani Bhide Gharote, Advs. for the Appellant. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., Zoheb Hussain, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar, Vivek Gurnani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Samrat Goswami,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.