The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to actor and influencer Sandeepa Virk in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case involving alleged proceeds of crime amounting to approximately ₹6 crore, after considering factors such as her more than four months of judicial custody and the fact that the main accused has been declared a “proclaimed offender” and remains unarrested.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing the matter arising out of allegations that the main accused, Amit Gupta, along with Sandeepa Virk, had allegedly duped the complainant and her family members of approximately ₹6 crores on the pretext of offering her a role of a lead actress in a film and inducing her to invest money in the production of the said film.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing the matter and granted bail to Virk on December 27. (Image is enhanced using AI)
It was further alleged that Virk knowingly received part of the proceeds of crime in her bank accounts, utilised such funds for the acquisition of immovable properties in Delhi and Mumbai, and therefore participated in the process of acquisition, possession, use and projection of proceeds of crime as “untainted property” under the PMLA.
Sandeepa was also charged with allegedly using a fake e-commerce website for money laundering and claimed to be the owner of the website hyboocare.com, which purportedly sold FDA-approved beauty products. However, upon verification, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) allegedly found that the products listed on the said website were counterfeit.
“Considering the cumulative effect of these circumstances — that the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than four months, the allegations relate to transactions of the years 2008-2013…and the fact that trial in the predicate offence is not proceeding since the only accused, i.e. Amit Gupta is absconding — this Court finds no ground to keep the applicant in judicial custody further”, the court said.
The high court also took into consideration that Virk is a woman and the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA did not apply to her; therefore, her plea was assessed under ordinary bail principles.
The court, in its December 27 order, granted bail to Virk on the condition of furnishing a personal bond for Rs 2 lakh with two sureties of the like amount, providing her mobile number and complete address to the investigation office, along with surrendering her passport to the trial courts and not leaving the country without prior permission of the concerned court.
Appearing for Virk, senior advocate Anurag Alhuwalia argued that her arrest, despite having no direct role in the commission of the scheduled offence, while the main accused remained at large, amounted to a selective and arbitrary exercise of power.
He further argued that the trial in the case itself has been stalled, as the sole accused has been declared a proclaimed offender.
Pointing out that the continued incarceration of Virk would amount to “punitive detention”, Alhuwalia submitted that there was no material to suggest that his client had attempted to evade investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
On the contrary, the ED’s counsel, Samrat Goswami, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the application was a “deliberate attempt” to dilute a “serious and well-documented money laundering” case by portraying it as an “ordinary criminal prosecution” governed by liberal bail principles, which would run contrary to the express legislative intent of the PMLA.
It was further submitted by Goswami that even if a person is not directly involved in the commission of the scheduled offence, such a person may still be guilty of money laundering if they knowingly assist in the concealment, possession, or acquisition of proceeds of crime.
The ED pointed out that approximately ₹1 crore out of the alleged ₹6 crore was directly transferred into Virk’s bank accounts, and these transfers were neither denied nor satisfactorily explained.