No Reason To Deny Special Treatment For Being A Woman: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Accused In PMLA Case

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Simpy Bharadwaj, who had been booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for her alleged involvement in a Rs 6,606 crore Bitcoin-based Ponzi scheme.

The Single-Bench of Justice Manish Pitale, while granting bail on October 11, 2024, highlighted Bharadwaj’s status as a mother of a six-year-old child and invoked the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which provides special consideration for women.

"This Court is of the opinion that the applicant, in the present case, being a woman, is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. This Court finds no reason as to why the applicant is to be denied the benefit of the exception carved out in the proviso for special treatment. In any case, it is not denied that the applicant is a mother to a six year old child, who obviously needs her care and company. She has suffered incarceration for about ten months and continuing her judicial custody would serve no purpose when the commencement of the trial in the present case, itself, will not be undertaken in the foreseeable future, thereby indicating that the completion of the trial will not take place within a reasonable period of time," the Bench observed. 

Bharadwaj had been arrested in December 2023 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly obstructing a search operation that allowed her husband, Amit Bharadwaj, the founder of GainBitcoin.com, and her father-in-law to escape. The ED claimed she played an active role in promoting the scheme and held crucial passwords linked to the proceeds of the crime.

Simpy Bharadwaj is the wife of Amit Bharadwaj, who, along with others, was accused of orchestrating one of India’s largest Ponzi schemes through his company, Variable Tech Pvt. Ltd. The scheme lured investors with promises of a 10% return on every Bitcoin for 18 months, collecting over 80,000 bitcoins. The ED registered a case in 2018, but Simpy Bharadwaj was not initially named in the FIRs. She was later arrested for allegedly obstructing an ED operation. Despite the ED’s claims, Bharadwaj maintained that her arrest was unwarranted and based on weak evidence.

The Single-Judge noted that Bharadwaj had been incarcerated for over 10 months, and there was no foreseeable timeline for the commencement of the trial. The Court also found that continuing her custody would serve no purpose, especially given her role as a mother and the lack of substantial evidence linking her directly to the alleged crimes. Additionally, the grounds for her arrest appeared hastily drafted without applying objective standards, casting doubt on the legitimacy of her detention.

The Bench granted Bharadwaj bail on a surety of Rs 50,000. The Court's order underscored that her arrest might have violated Section 19 of the PMLA due to insufficient credible evidence at the time. "Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would make the applicant liable to face proceedings for cancellation of bail. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of grant of bail to the applicant in the present application and that the trial Court shall proceed further, without being influenced by the observations made in this order," the Court said. 

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement, whereby it held that when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for certain category of accused, if the benefit of such special treatment is to be denied, the Court is required to give specific reasons for such denial. 

The Court ordered, "The applicant is permitted to furnish cash security of Rs. 50,000/- for a period of four weeks." Accordingly, the Court disposed of the bail application.

Cause Title: Simpy Bharadwaj v. Union of India and another [Neutral Citation. 2024:BHC-AS:40367]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocates Akhilesh Dubey, Sagar Wakale, Vagish Mishra, Amit Dubey, Uttam Dubey, Rajuram Kuleriya, Varad Dubey, Shubham Sharma, Alex D'souza, Emad Khan, Sahil Upadhyay

Respondent: Special Counsel Shreeram Shirsat, Advocates Shekhar Mane, Nikhil Daga, Additional Public Prosecutor Balraj Kulkarni

Click here to read/download the Judgment