ORDER : 1. On behalf of the accused-petitioner, the instant bail application has been preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with ECIR No. JPZO/03/2023, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’ ). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2024, and the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA are not applicable in the present case as the accused is a woman. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bala v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No. 16260 of 2024 , dated 15.01.2025. 3. It is also contended that the petitioner has been in custody for more than eight months. The complaint relies on four predicate FIRs: FIR No. 227/2022, FIR No.747/2022, FIR No. 647/2022, and FIR No. 1289/2022. The petitioner is implicated only in FIR No. 227/2022, in which a supplementary charge sheet has been submitted against her. The charge sheet comprises voluminous documentary evidence, and the prosecution has submitted six supplementary charge sheets. There are 183 witnesses cited in all the supplementary charge sheets. Thus, the trial is going to take a considerable amount of time. It is also contended that without the conclusion of the trial in the predicate offence, the prosecution under PMLA cannot be concluded. To buttress his argument, the petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 . It is further contended that the petitioner had no knowledge that the other co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh, was involved in any criminal activity. The petitioner did not receive any amount from the co-accused Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in regular contact with Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh since the year 2010, as the sister of the co-accused Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh was engaged to the petitioner’s brother, and that she has known him since then. It is further contended that the allegation regarding the proceeds of crime in the present case is arbitrary and illogical. It is further contended that the allegation regarding the proceeds of crime in the present case is arbitrary and illogical. A property purchased in 2016 cannot constitute proceeds of crime allegedly generated in December 2022. Similarly, the property purchased on 15.07.2022 through a registered sale deed, annexed as Annexure 4, demonstrates that Rs. 35 lakhs were paid. The oral evidence contrary to the terms of a registered sale deed is expressly barred and rendered inadmissible under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both the properties were acquired before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime and, therefore, cannot be connected with the offence in question. It is also contended that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court construed the expression “proceeds of crime” to mean property obtained “as a result” of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The petitioner had a genuine source of income, and the transaction details of the petitioner’s savings bank account establish that the aforesaid properties were purchased bonafide and through accounted funds. Similarly, it is contended that the cash deposited in the petitioner’s account is not related to the alleged proceeds of crime and pertains to the period from 2005 to 2022, i.e., before the occurrence of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no recovery was made, nor was any incriminating document seized from the petitioner's residential premises. The alleged amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from a plot of land belonging to the petitioner’s father, at the instance of Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh, and the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the petitioner's bail application may be allowed. 4. The Learned Additional Solicitor General has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the offence, having acquired proceeds of crime, and assisted Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh in facilitating the illegal activity about the alleged paper leak. 5. It is vehemently argued that the scope of Section 3 of the PMLA is broad, and even if a person is involved in any of the activities such as concealment, possession, acquisition, or use, and projecting or claiming such property as untainted, they are liable for committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. 5. It is vehemently argued that the scope of Section 3 of the PMLA is broad, and even if a person is involved in any of the activities such as concealment, possession, acquisition, or use, and projecting or claiming such property as untainted, they are liable for committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. It is further contended that the scope of Section 3 extends to a person who, directly or indirectly, attempts to indulge in or assist in the generation of proceeds of crime. It is also contended that during the investigation of the predicate offence, the Investigating Agency surfaced that the petitioner, Anita Kumari, had purchased two plots and received Rs. 65 lakhs from Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh. The predicate agency also recovered an agreement in which it was explicitly mentioned that Anil Kumar Meena paid Rs. 35 lakhs @ Sher Singh. The investigation further reveals that the petitioner, Anita Kumari, was in regular contact with Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh during the period of the paper leak crime. Anita Kumari's vehicles were used by her close associates and the co-accused Anil Kumar Meena @ Sher Singh to carry candidates for the REET paper leak. An amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from the sister’s house of Anita Kumari, which was part of the amount received by Anil Kumar Meena for leaking and distributing the paper. Moreover, the unexplained cash deposits in Anita Kumari’s bank accounts further indicate her connivance with Anil Kumar Meena. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The petitioner in the present case has sought bail based on the proviso appended to Section 45 of the PMLA. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the rigours of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply, as the petitioner in the present case is a woman. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No. 16260/2024 , decided on 15.01.2025. On the contrary, the learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on the judgment in Enforcement Directorate v. Prita Chanda, SLP (Crl.) No. 7409/2023 order dated 04.08.2023, and Somya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Crl.) Appeal No. 3840/2023 , dated 14.12.2023. On the contrary, the learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on the judgment in Enforcement Directorate v. Prita Chanda, SLP (Crl.) No. 7409/2023 order dated 04.08.2023, and Somya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Crl.) Appeal No. 3840/2023 , dated 14.12.2023. In the case of Shashi Bala (Supra) , the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the factual aspects of the case, granted bail to the appellant under Section 45(1) sub-clause (2) of the PMLA. The Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Chandra (Supra) observed that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA is discretionary and that the statutory provision does not imply that the accused must necessarily be released on bail. A similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Saumya Chaurasia (Supra) 9. Thus, the aforementioned position of law makes it clear that the discretion lies with the Court. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on that ground alone. 10. In the present case, the petitioner was employed as Deputy Manager at SBI Kohinoor Branch, Jaipur. The petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2023 concerning the paper leak related to the Teacher Grade-II Examination, 2022. In connivance with Anil Kumar Meena, the petitioner played a significant role in the unauthorised leaking of the REET examination paper. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was aware of the REET paper and actively assisted the other co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena, by arranging a printer at her residence in Jaipur, where the question paper was formatted and printed for circulation. The petitioner continuously communicated with the co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena, and the call detail records collected by the Investigating Agency substantiated the allegations. Furthermore, the petitioner received financial benefits from the proceeds of the REET examination. At the instance of co-accused Anil Kumar Meena, Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from the petitioner’s father’s house. This shows that the petitioner facilitated the other co-accused hiding the amount gathered in connection with the leaked paper. Though the other evidence collected regarding the petitioner’s role in the paper leakage pertains to the period before the incident, the evidence gathered so far points out the petitioner's role in the alleged crime. 11. This shows that the petitioner facilitated the other co-accused hiding the amount gathered in connection with the leaked paper. Though the other evidence collected regarding the petitioner’s role in the paper leakage pertains to the period before the incident, the evidence gathered so far points out the petitioner's role in the alleged crime. 11. Section 3 of the PMLA is applicable even if the petitioner has not directly generated the money through criminal activity but only based on assistance provided to the other co-accused involved in such criminal activity. The co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena, was the kingpin in the paper leakage, and the petitioner, Anita Kumari, assisted her. For example, she arranged a printer at her residence and concealed the money received from the paper leakage, etc. Therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved in the generation of proceeds of crime. 12. Therefore, considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 13. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.