Sandeepa Virk Denied Bail by Delhi Court in ₹6 Crore Money Laundering Case Over Fake Film Investment Allegations

The Court 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).

The case stems from FIR No. 91/2016 registered at Police Station Phase-8, SAS Nagar (Mohali) under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The complaint was filed by Jasneet Kaur, who alleged that she and her family were duped of approximately ₹6 crore by Virk and co-accused Amit Gupta alias Nageshwar Gupta on the false promise of securing her a lead acting role in a film and inviting her to invest in its production.

The Mohali police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet only against Amit Gupta, who has since been declared a proclaimed offender by a local court. However, nearly nine years after the registration of the FIR, the ED initiated an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in August 2025 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, alleging that proceeds of crime were laundered through various means by both accused persons.

The agency claimed that Virk was actively involved in “creating undue influence and misrepresentation” to obtain funds and that she used a fake e-commerce website, hyboocare.comm to project illicit proceeds as legitimate income. The website claimed to sell “FDA-approved herbal beauty products” from a Delhi address, but ED said the products were fake and the website was a front for laundering money.

The prosecution told the Court that the investigation revealed Virk had no genuine source of income and had allegedly used proceeds of crime to acquire properties, including a flat in Mumbai jointly owned by her, Gupta, and one Kamla. The ED further alleged that the actress had financed a “luxury lifestyle and travel” and purchased two additional properties in Delhi using laundered funds.

ED also accused Virk of destroying her mobile phone, which it claimed contained critical evidence, calling it a deliberate attempt to obstruct the probe. The agency maintained that further investigation was ongoing and releasing her on bail could “adversely affect” efforts to uncover the full conspiracy.

Virk’s counsel argued that she had been falsely implicated due to her past personal relationship with co-accused Amit Gupta and that she had no role in the predicate offence or in any money laundering activity. Her counsel emphasized that she was not named in the original FIR, had no possession of proceeds of crime, and had cooperated with investigators. It was further contended that the prosecution complaint had already been filed, the investigation was complete, and Virk was no longer required for custodial interrogation. The defence argued that under the second proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, being a woman, Virk could be granted bail at the court’s discretion.

Her counsel also cited that she had an unblemished career in acting, legitimate earnings from her herbal business, and had been in judicial custody since August 18, 2025. The defence urged the court to recognize that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.”

After hearing both sides, the Court 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 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.”

The Court also emphasized that economic offences are of a special category that “require a different approach” to bail and that the case was still at the stage of cognizance, with key witnesses yet to be examined.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Sandeepa Virk’s bail plea, directing that a copy of the order be sent to the jail superintendent and appended with information on free legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies.