Bail Provisions Under PMLA – Is Section 45 PMLA “Twin Conditions” Gender Neutral?

Are the twin bail conditions under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 gender neutral?

Well, answering in a concise manner – No, the “twin conditions” for bail under PMLA Act are not gender neutral.

This distinction is further highlighted by the recent development in WinZO fraud case where Saumya Singh Rathore (co-founder of WinZO) was granted bail by a Bengaluru sessions court stating -

“Accused No.1 being a ‘woman’, her case falls under the proviso to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA Act, and the twin conditions are not applicable in her case”

As reported by Bar and Bench

In this article, I will answer the query regarding – whether the twin bail conditions under Section 45 PMLA are Gender Neutral or not in the light of recent WinZO fraud case. 

I will also analyze various landmark Supreme Court judgements that will give us a clear idea about the application of twin bail conditions under PMLA Act in respect of women.

1. Understanding the Twin Conditions of Bail Under Section 45 PMLA, 2002

If a person commits an act of money laundering or possesses proceeds of crime or does any act that is in violation of the provisions of this act, they may get arrested by the enforcement agencies.

In such a scenario, to secure bail, the accused has to satisfy the stringent “twin conditions” of bail provided under section 45 of this act. These bail conditions are one of the harshest bail conditions provided under Indian law.

Section 45 says that while hearing the accused person on bail application, the court must give public prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the application.

If the public prosecutor opposes the bail application (happens in most of the cases), the accused then must satisfy the court these “twin conditions” in order to secure bail –

1. That there are reasonable grounds for the court to believe that the person is not guilty of such offence

2. If released, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

   
   

1.1. Exemptions under section 45 PMLA, 2002

While the bail conditions under the provision are very strict, the proviso of Section 45(1)(ii) contains four categories that maybe granted bail without the application of stringent “twin conditions” –

a)    person who is under the age of sixteen years of age

b)   a women

c)    a sick or infirm person

d)   person who is accused of money-laundering for a sum of less than one crore rupees. (added through PMLA amendment 2018)

2. Bail of WinZO co-founder Saumya Singh Rathore

This recent development highlighted the gender neutrality aspect of section 45 PMLA.

Saumya Singh Rathore was granted bail on December 26 2025 by a Bengaluru sessions court. While granting her bail, the court observed

“Accused No.1 being a ‘woman’, her case falls under the proviso to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, and the twin conditions are not applicable in her case” 

As reported by Bar and Bench   

The court further observed:

“Merely because she has to be confronted with statements of her employees or that some more evidence is to be collected, that will be no ground for seeking Accused No.1 for further custody by ED” 

As reported by Bar and Bench

Saumya Singh Rathore was directed by the court to execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties, surrender her passport, refrain from leaving the country without permission, and cooperate with the investigation as bail conditions.

3. A Mechanical Application of Law?

In my opinion, bail granted to Saumya Singh Rathore (co-founder of WinZO) by Bengaluru sessions court, shows a mechanical application of the proviso by the honourable court, which directly conflicts with the interpretation of the first proviso of Section 45 PMLA by The Supreme Court of Indian in Saumya Chaurasia vs Directorate of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1073.

After analyzing the reported claims by various reputed media sites such as Bar and Bench, Hindustan Times, MSN and other sources there is no clear mention about Saumya Singh Rathore’s less involvement in the WinZO Scandal as compared to Paavan Nanda (Founder of WinZO).

Further in the absence of case related official documents, I relied on official press releases by Enforcement Directorate regarding the WinZO case.

In the press release by Enforcement Directorate, there is no clear mention of one founder being less or not involved then the other.

Based on the reported facts and the enforcement directorate official press releases, I am not of the opinion that benefit of the first proviso of Section 45 PMLA can be given to Saumya Singh Rathore (co-founder of WinZO).

Hence, after considering all the above mentioned sources and various landmark judgements of The Supreme Court of India and High Courts (as analyzed below) , I am of the opinion that the honorable court, while granting bail to Saumya Singh Rathore should have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, her involvement and specific role in the whole scandal and the material evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate, rather than mechanically applying the proviso and giving her the benefit of it.

4. Judicial Interpretation: Is the PMLA 'Gender Exception' Absolute or Discretionary?

Indian courts have interpreted the proviso of Section 45(1)(ii) in various lights.

Some judgements interpreted it as a “lenient bail provision” that is analogous to the proviso of Section 437 of CrPC (480 BNSS), which is a “welfare legislation”.

While dealing with “welfare legislations”, court is expected to show sensitivity while dealing with the cases of women, provided that – the application of this depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 

On the other hand, some judgements directly emphasized on the word “maybe” that is mentioned in the proviso of Section 45(1)(ii).

According to those judgements, the nature of the proviso is not binding but discretion. Courts must apply the benefits of the proviso based on facts and circumstances of each case.

4.1. Saumya Chaurasia vs Directorate of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1073

This recent Supreme Court of India judgement directly deals with the question – In which cases benefit of the first proviso of Section 45 PMLA should be given to women (para 22.).

The Supreme Court of India in its judgement deals with this question in a very clear and systematic way, making it clear as to when the benefit of the proviso will be given and how it shall be decided.

Court’s Interpretation to First Proviso of Section 45 PMLA

The honorable court clearly mentioned that the inclusion of the word “maybe” in the proviso clearly indicated that application of proviso is at the court’s discretion and it’s not mandatory or obligatory to extend its benefit to every person covered under the special categories of proviso (para 24.).

The court further cautioned that – if proviso is applied mechanically, all the serious offences under special acts would be committed involving women and persons of age below 16.

The interpretation of court as to how the application of the proviso should be done can be summarized in five points as mentioned –

1) The application of the proviso is at the discretion of the court and cannot be interpreted mechanically in all cases.

2) It should be applied considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

3) The extent of involvement of such person should be taken into consideration in the alleged offence.

4) The nature of the evidences collected by the investigation agency etc. must be considered.

5) It is not mandatory or obligatory on the part of court to release every such person covered under the special categories of proviso.

This interpretation by the apex court clearly shows us that the benefits of the proviso must be given after considering all the factors with facts and circumstances of each case.

4.2. kewal krishan kumar v Enforcement Directorate (2023) Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court was dealing with a bail application on grounds of exemption to “sick and infirm” provided in the proviso of Section 45 PMLA.

The Honourable court, while interpreting the proviso and finding legislative intent behind inclusion of proviso to section 45(1) PMLA, considered it as a “lenient bail provision encapsulated in PMLA” (para 19.).

The court also considered that provision of Section 45(1) PMLA is analogous to the proviso of section 437 CrPC (480 BNSS) (para 21.).

4.3. Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2022 INSC 690

Satender Kumar Antil is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgement on bail. It is my obligation to include this masterpiece in this discussion as it directly deals with the proviso of Section 437 Crpc (480 BNSS).

Delhi High Court in kewal krishan kumar v Enforcement Directorate (2023) considered the proviso of Section 45(1) PMLA analogous to the proviso of Section 437 CrPC (480 BNSS).

So, it will be necessary to understand the reason behind inclusion of women in the proviso of Section 437 CrPC (480 BNSS) and also the interpretation of the apex court regarding the same.

OBSERVATION - The Supreme Court of India in this judgement, while interpreting the proviso specifically in case of a women observed – in case pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity, and while observing this court relied on the specific facts regarding women who commit cognizable offences.

The exact facts relied by the honorable court are mentioned in para 51. Of the judgement –

51. Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when the accused is under the age of sixteen years, sick or infirm or being a woman, is something which is required to be taken note of. Obviously, the court has to satisfy itself that the accused person is sick or infirm. In a case pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity. We have already taken note of the fact that many women who commit cognizable offenses are poor and illiterate. In many cases, upon being young they have children to take care of, and there are many instances when the children are to live in prisons. The statistics would show that more than 1000 children are living in prisons along with their mothers. This is an aspect that the courts are expected to take note of as it would not only involve the interest of the accused, but also the children who are not expected to get exposed to the prisons. There is a grave danger of their being inherited not only with poverty but with crime as well.

Para 51. Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2022 INSC 690

The court further considered this as a “welfare legislation” and suggested that a “purposive interpretation” should be done while dealing with such legislations.

Most importantly, the honorable court clearly mentioned that the proviso shouldn’t be interpreted mechanically and the application must be done upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

58.Section 437 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to deal with all the offenses while considering an application for bail with the exception of an offense punishable either with life imprisonment or death triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The first proviso facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, as discussed earlier. This being a welfare legislation, though introduced by way of a proviso, has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. The power under Section 439 of the Code is exercised against an order rejecting an application for bail and against an offence exclusively decided by 66 the Court of Sessions. There cannot be a divided application of proviso to Section 437, while exercising the power under Section 439. While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. We do not wish to state that this proviso has to be considered favourably in all cases as the application depends upon the facts and circumstances contained therein. What is required is the consideration per se by the court of this proviso among other factors.

Para 58. Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2022 INSC 690