[ad_1]
New Delhi: Observing that many educated and well-placed women are indulging in illegal activities, including money laundering, the Supreme Court has said that the benefit of a benevolent provision for relaxation in granting bail to female accused should not be given in all cases, and it must depend on the extent of her involvement in the crime and the nature of evidence against her.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi turned down the bail plea of a former deputy secretary and OSD in the office of former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel and refused to grant her benefit of Section 45 of PMLA, which says an accused who is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail. The bench also imposed a cost Rs 1 lakh on officer Saumya Chaurasia for misleading the court by stating wrong facts during the hearing.
Expounding Section 45, the bench said that the expression “may be” has been used in the first proviso to Section 45, which indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the court considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as mandatory or obligatory on the part of the court to release them.
“Similar benevolent provision for granting bail to the category of persons below the age of 16 years, women, the sick or the infirm has been made in Section 437 CrPC and many other special enactments also. However, by no stretch of imagination could such a provision be construed as obligatory or mandatory in nature. Otherwise, all serious offences under such special Acts would be committed involving women and persons of a tender age below 16 years,” the bench said.
“No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crimes. Nonetheless, the courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays educated and well-placed women engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities. In essence, courts should exercise discretion judiciously using their prudence while granting the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons mentioned therein,” the bench said.
Refusing relief to the bureaucrat, who has been in custody since December 2 last year, the bench said there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED to prima facie come to the conclusion that she was actively involved in the offence of money laundering. There is nothing on record to satisfy the court that the appellant is not guilty and the special benefit of Section 45 should be granted to the appellant, the court noted.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi turned down the bail plea of a former deputy secretary and OSD in the office of former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel and refused to grant her benefit of Section 45 of PMLA, which says an accused who is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail. The bench also imposed a cost Rs 1 lakh on officer Saumya Chaurasia for misleading the court by stating wrong facts during the hearing.
Expounding Section 45, the bench said that the expression “may be” has been used in the first proviso to Section 45, which indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the court considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as mandatory or obligatory on the part of the court to release them.
“Similar benevolent provision for granting bail to the category of persons below the age of 16 years, women, the sick or the infirm has been made in Section 437 CrPC and many other special enactments also. However, by no stretch of imagination could such a provision be construed as obligatory or mandatory in nature. Otherwise, all serious offences under such special Acts would be committed involving women and persons of a tender age below 16 years,” the bench said.
“No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crimes. Nonetheless, the courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays educated and well-placed women engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities. In essence, courts should exercise discretion judiciously using their prudence while granting the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons mentioned therein,” the bench said.
Refusing relief to the bureaucrat, who has been in custody since December 2 last year, the bench said there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED to prima facie come to the conclusion that she was actively involved in the offence of money laundering. There is nothing on record to satisfy the court that the appellant is not guilty and the special benefit of Section 45 should be granted to the appellant, the court noted.
[ad_2]
Source link
More Stories
Congress replaces Kamal Nath, names an OBC as Madhya Pradesh chief | India News
Fire breaks out in ITBP camp in Srinagar; none hurt | India News
Parliament Security: Co-villagers give clean chit to Lalit Jha, parents to move court | India News