Women, Minors, the Sick and Infirm: The Section 45 PMLA Bail Proviso
The proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA recognises that certain accused may require a different bail assessment. It covers a person below sixteen years, a woman, a sick or infirm person, and a person accused—alone or together with co-accused—of laundering a sum below ₹1 crore.
Effect of the proviso
The proviso permits the Special Court to release a qualifying person without insisting on satisfaction of the ordinary twin conditions in their full rigour. It is an enabling protection, not an automatic command. The court retains discretion and may consider the alleged role, risk of absconding, likelihood of influencing witnesses, destruction of evidence and compliance with earlier process.
In K. Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided 27 August 2024, the Supreme Court explained that a woman is entitled to special treatment under the proviso, while emphasising that the outcome remains fact-sensitive. The provision should not be confined only to a woman labelled “vulnerable,” or neutralised by demanding the same threshold from which the proviso is intended to provide relief.
Sickness and infirmity are distinct
“Sick” ordinarily focuses on a medical condition requiring treatment or management. “Infirm” may include physical or mental debility that substantially diminishes the person’s ability to function or withstand custody. A diagnosis alone is not always enough. Medical records should address severity, prognosis, treatment availability in custody, risk of deterioration and the need for specialised or continuous care.
The court should avoid two errors: treating every common ailment as sufficient, or requiring a medical emergency so extreme that the statutory word becomes meaningless. Independent medical evaluation may resolve contested facts.
The value threshold
For the below-₹1 crore limb, the complaint’s computation of alleged laundering must be examined. The statutory language refers to the sum of money-laundering attributed to the accused alone or with co-accused. Artificial inflation, double counting and conflation of the entire scheduled-offence amount with proceeds handled by the applicant require scrutiny.
Conditions can manage risk
Even where the proviso applies, release may be structured through passport deposit, regular attendance, travel restrictions, non-contact directions and disclosure of residence or medical treatment. The conditions must be proportionate and capable of compliance.
The proviso expresses a legislative choice that vulnerability and lower-value allegations matter. Courts should give it genuine operation while protecting the integrity of investigation and trial.
Sources
Supreme Court of India, K. Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024, decided 27 August 2024: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/35524/35524_2024_3_19_55112_Judgement_27-Aug-2024.pdf
Supreme Court of India, Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1073.
Supreme Court of India, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 INSC 757.
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Section 45: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/15402
#PMLA #BailProviso #PersonalLiberty