Women Are Exempt from Section 45 ‘Twin Conditions’ but Have No Automatic Right to Bail; Courts Must Apply Ordinary Bail Principles: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Mrs. Surabhi @ Surbhi Duhan v. Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director, Chandigarh Zonal Office-1, Chandigarh
Date of Judgment: 07 August 2026
Citation: CRM-M-7180-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts a woman accused from satisfying the statutory “twin conditions” for bail. The expression “woman” has been used without qualification, and courts cannot create sub-classifications based on education, professional standing, official position or socio-economic status. However, the proviso is enabling and discretionary and does not confer an automatic or indefeasible right to bail merely on account of gender. Once the twin conditions are lifted, ordinary principles of bail jurisprudence including the nature and gravity of allegations, prima facie material, extent of participation, flight risk, possibility of influencing witnesses and period of custody continue to govern the Court’s discretion.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in an ECIR registered under the PMLA, arising from allegations concerning an organised transnational cyber-fraud call centre targeting persons in the United States. The ED alleged that approximately ₹25 crore in proceeds of crime had been generated and routed through hawala channels and that the petitioner played an active role in managing the company’s financial affairs, handling proceeds of crime and layering funds through various accounts. The petitioner disputed her involvement and, inter alia, invoked the special statutory treatment afforded to women under the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA.
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the scope of the proviso and concluded that a woman seeking bail under the PMLA is not required to satisfy the twin conditions, though bail must still be determined judicially on ordinary principles. Applying those principles, the Court noted that the petitioner had undergone more than seven months of incarceration, the prosecution complaint had already been filed, and the trial remained at the pre-cognizance stage. The prosecution proposed to examine 73 witnesses and relied upon 111 documents running into 6,728 pages, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely. The Court further found no tangible material demonstrating that the petitioner would influence witnesses or posed a potent flight risk. It therefore considered continued incarceration unwarranted at that stage.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner in ECIR/CDZO-I/17/2025. The Court took into account her status as a woman, the inapplicability of the Section 45 twin conditions, incarceration exceeding seven months, the voluminous prosecution evidence and consequent likelihood of a prolonged trial, coupled with the absence of tangible material establishing a real possibility of witness influence or a substantial flight risk.