₹6 Crore Money Laundering Case: Delhi HC Grants Bail to Sandeepa Virk, Flags 9-Year Delay & Selective Arrest

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed Virk’s bail plea in a case arising out of ECIR No. HIU-II/24/2025 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) in connection with an alleged ₹6 crore cheating and money laundering racket linked to a 2016 FIR from Punjab.

The predicate offence dates back to FIR No. 91/2016 registered at Phase-8 Police Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the complainant and her family were duped of nearly ₹6 crore on the false promise of casting the complainant as a lead actress in a film and inducing investment in its production.

While the FIR named several accused, including Virk, the police eventually filed a chargesheet only against Amit Gupta alias Nageshwar Gupta under Section 406 IPC. Virk was neither chargesheeted nor summoned, and even a private complaint filed later under Section 200 CrPC resulted in cognizance being taken only against Gupta. Gupta was declared a proclaimed offender in October 2024.

Despite the FIR being registered in 2016 and the alleged transactions dating back to 2008–2013, the Enforcement Directorate recorded the ECIR only on August 11, 2025, and arrested Virk the very next day. She had remained in judicial custody since August 12, 2025.

The ED alleged that Virk knowingly received ₹1.03 crore of the alleged proceeds of crime into her bank account and used tainted funds to acquire immovable properties, including a flat in Andheri, Mumbai, later transferred entirely in her name through a gift deed. She was also accused of using a fake e-commerce website to launder money and of destroying her mobile phone to erase evidence.

The agency opposed bail, arguing that money laundering is a distinct and continuing offence independent of the predicate crime, and that the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA does not create an automatic right to bail for women.

The High Court rejected the ED’s opposition, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shashi Bala v. Directorate of Enforcement, which clarified that the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA do not apply to women accused, though judicial discretion must still be exercised.

The Court noted several crucial factors: Virk was never chargesheeted or summoned in the predicate offence; a substantial amount of approximately ₹2.7 crore had already been refunded to the complainant; the ECIR was registered nearly a decade after the alleged transactions; the investigation against Virk was complete; and the prosecution complaint had already been filed.

Significantly, the Court questioned why the principal accused, Gupta, remained unarrested despite being declared a proclaimed offender, while Virk had been taken into custody within 24 hours of the ECIR.

Holding that no purpose would be served by further incarceration, the Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case.

A Delhi Court, in November while denying Sandeepa Virk bail had observed that the allegations against the accused were “grave and serious in nature” and that her release on bail could hamper the investigation or allow her to tamper with evidence.

The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vijay Shankar of the Tis Hazari Courts on November 4, 2025, dismissing Virk’s first regular bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). After hearing both sides, the Court had ruled that the facts and gravity of the case did not justify bail. It held that the “rigours of Section 45 of PMLA” must be considered even in cases involving women, and the discretion under the proviso was not automatic.

The Judge had noted: “Allegations against the accused are grave and serious in nature. If the accused is released on bail, there is a possibility that she may abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.”