Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Woman Accused in Transnational Cyber-Fraud Money Laundering Case, Clarifies Scope of Section 45 PMLA Proviso

Justice Sumeet Goel held that the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA lifts the twin conditions for women accused but confers only judicial discretion, not an automatic right to bail, then granted bail to the petitioner on the facts of the case.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has granted regular bail to Mrs. Surabhi @ Surbhi Duhan, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on 16 December 2025 in connection with a transnational cyber-fraud call-centre operation alleged to have generated proceeds of crime of approximately ₹25 crores. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, decided the petition on 7 August 2026 after more than seven months of custody. The judgment sets out a detailed framework for how courts must treat bail applications by women accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — holding that the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA exempts women from the statutory twin conditions but does not transform bail into an entitlement. Having found that the ED had not brought forward any tangible basis to show flight risk or witness-tampering potential, and that trial conclusion was not foreseeable soon, the Court exercised its discretion in the petitioner’s favour.

The Allegations Against the Petitioner

The Enforcement Case Information Report was registered on 18 September 2025. The prosecution complaint followed on 27 January 2026. The ED alleged that Surabhi Duhan was the real owner and controller of M/s Certiszep Innovations (OPC) Private Limited, operating a fake call centre at 2nd Floor, Plot No. 7, Sector 22, IT Park, Panchkula. The call centre had no Department of Telecommunications licence and used X-Lite dialers, Eyebeam, and remote-access software to deceive foreign nationals — primarily United States citizens — into believing they had technical problems and then cheating them.

The ED alleged that proceeds of crime to the tune of ₹25 crores were generated between June 2024 and August 2025, transferred to India through hawala channels, and then routed through the petitioner’s personal bank accounts, accounts of her family members including her brother Rishabh Duhan and father Krishan Lal, and accounts of related firms. The petitioner was alleged to have personally managed the financial affairs of the call centre, brought cash for salary disbursements, and co-ordinated hawala transactions with co-accused Mahesh Chandrashekhar Shetye. WhatsApp chats containing hawala-related communications between the petitioner and Shetye were recovered during the PMLA investigation.

The ED further alleged that the petitioner had absconded from 25 August 2025 to 15 December 2025 after the police began cracking down on the operation, used fake identity documents while staying at hotels during that period, and admitted during custody to having no legitimate source of income. The company itself was alleged to have been fraudulently incorporated in the name of a name-lender, Purushottam Mishra, to conceal the real ownership. The ED claimed that approximately ₹8–9 crores of the proceeds were still in the petitioner’s possession or recoverable, and that around ₹3.25 crores in cash had been taken away during her period of absconding. The prosecution complaint charges the petitioner with offences under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 70 of the PMLA.

The petitioner was arrested on 16 December 2025, produced before the Special Court at Panchkula the following day, remanded to ED custody for seven days, and then sent to judicial custody by order dated 24 December 2025. She remained in judicial custody as of the date of the High Court hearing.

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioner was represented by Shri Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate. The ED was represented by Shri Satyapal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing by video conference, with Ms. Meghna Malik, Senior Panel Counsel.

Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that she is a 29-year-old woman and was arrested with undue haste. The central submission was that the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA do not apply to her because she is a woman, by virtue of the first proviso to Section 45(1). He further argued that the case against her rested substantially on the disclosure statement of a co-accused who allegedly bore a personal grudge, with no independent documentary corroboration. There was no rent agreement, partnership deed, bank mandate, or other document connecting her to M/s Certis IT Services. He also contended that the arrest was contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA, that the prosecution complaint had already been filed on 27 January 2026, that the investigation qua the petitioner was complete, and that the trial — still at the pre-cognizance stage — involved 73 witnesses and 111 documents running to 6,728 pages. The petitioner had also been diagnosed with Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, candidal infection, and recurrent vaginal infection.

The Additional Solicitor General resisted the application. He contended that being a woman does not confer an indefeasible right to regular bail in a serious PMLA offence. He urged that the petitioner had an active role in the offending company, was in a position to influence witnesses given her deep involvement, and posed a flight risk given her previous absconding. He submitted that the medical conditions cited did not warrant bail and that the authorities were attending to her medical needs.

The Legal Framework: Section 45 PMLA and the Woman-Accused Proviso

Justice Goel identified the central legal question as the parameters governing a bail application by a woman accused under the PMLA. The Court reproduced Section 45 of the PMLA, the first proviso to Section 45(1), the corresponding proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 480(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court surveyed four Supreme Court judgments: Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Another, (2001) 4 SCC 280; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 6 SCC 401; Directorate of Enforcement v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 930; and Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269. It also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2025, decided on 15 January 2025.

From these precedents and statutory analysis, Justice Goel distilled the following propositions. First, the exemption in the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is clear and unambiguous: the twin conditions do not apply to a woman accused seeking regular bail. Second, the legislature used the term “woman” without qualification, which means courts cannot create sub-categories based on education, professional standing, or socio-economic status when deciding whether the proviso applies. Doing so would amount to impermissible judicial legislation. Third, however, the use of “may be” in the proviso, in contrast to the mandatory “shall” in the main body of Section 45(1), shows that the proviso is enabling rather than imperative. It lifts the twin-conditions bar and re-vests judicial discretion in the Court; it does not confer an absolute or automatic right to bail based solely on gender. Fourth, once the twin conditions are displaced, all other principles of bail jurisprudence — the prima facie strength of the prosecution case, the nature and extent of the accused’s participation, gravity of the offence, severity of potential sentence, flight risk, and apprehension of witness tampering — remain fully operative. Fifth, there is no universal formula and every case turns on its own factual context.

The Court also addressed a distinct structural point: while factors such as education, high official standing, and economic influence are irrelevant to the question of whether the twin conditions are displaced, they remain relevant to the subsequent exercise of discretion on the merits of the bail plea. The Court cited Kalvakuntla Kavitha as cautioning for judicious exercise of discretion where educated and well-placed women engage in commercial ventures involving money laundering.

Application of the Framework to the Facts

Having laid out the legal framework, Justice Goel applied it to the petitioner’s case. The Court accepted that the petitioner is a woman and that, accordingly, she was not required to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. The first proviso to Section 45(1) conferred a discretionary power on the Court to grant bail, which the Court said could not be treated as an empty formality.

On the factual matrix, the Court noted several factors weighing in the petitioner’s favour. She had been in custody for more than seven months as of the custody certificate dated 6 August 2026. The prosecution complaint was already filed on 27 January 2026, six weeks after her arrest, meaning the investigation qua her was complete and there was no tangible requirement of further custodial interrogation. The trial was at the pre-cognizance stage. With 73 witnesses proposed and 111 documents of 6,728 pages relied upon, the trial was not likely to conclude within any foreseeable near future. The prosecution material was substantially documentary and electronic in nature, and the documents and devices were already in the custody of the investigating agency. The ED had not brought forward any list of vulnerable witnesses or any tangible basis to show that the petitioner was likely to influence any witness. Nothing substantial was placed before the Court to support a real flight risk. The allegations were yet to be established by leading evidence during trial, and at the bail stage the Court was not required to determine the probative value of the statements and documents relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court held that the petitioner could not be subjected to incarceration for an indefinite period merely because the allegations are serious, particularly when trial conclusion is not foreseeable. The gravity of allegations, taken alone, is not the sole determining factor for deciding a bail prayer. The Court was required to balance gravity against personal liberty and the attending circumstances on record.

Bail Conditions Imposed

Justice Goel directed that the terms and conditions of bail would be settled by the concerned Special Judge or Duty Magistrate, but specified the following minimum conditions as part of the order itself.

The petitioner must not misuse the liberty granted. She must not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. She must not absent herself on any date before the trial court without prior permission. She must not commit any offence while on bail. She must deposit her passport with the concerned Special Judge or Duty Magistrate. She must provide her mobile number to the Investigating Officer and not change it without the trial court’s prior permission. She must not in any manner try to delay the trial. She must submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit before the concerned court confirming she has not been involved in commission of any offence after release. If she is found to be involved in any offence after release — on the basis of that affidavit or otherwise — the ED is mandated to move forthwith for cancellation of bail, which shall be decided on its merits. She must furnish either a demand draft, fixed deposit receipt, or bank guarantee of ₹20 lakh in favour of the court releasing her on bail, which amount is liable to be forfeited in case of any default.

The Court further clarified that in the event of breach of any of the above conditions, or conditions that may be imposed by the Special Court or Duty Magistrate, or upon any other sufficient cause, the ED shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. Nothing in the order was to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Order

CRM-M-7180-2026 was allowed. The petitioner Surabhi @ Surbhi Duhan was directed to be released on regular bail in ECIR/CDZO-I/17/2025 dated 18 September 2025, registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the conditions specified in the order and such further conditions as the concerned Special Judge or Duty Magistrate may deem appropriate. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. The order was pronounced orally on 7 August 2026 and uploaded on 10 August 2026.