The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused in a money laundering case investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The bench, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, exercised its discretion under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which provides for the relaxation of strict bail conditions for women. The Court also took a serious view of the indefinite delay in the trial, noting that the main accused remains a proclaimed offender, effectively stalling the proceedings.
Factual Background
The case stems from an FIR registered on November 16, 2016, at a police station in SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. The predicate offence involved allegations that the main accused, Amit Gupta (alias Nageshwar Gupta), along with others, had cheated a complainant and her family of approximately Rs 6 crores. The funds were allegedly obtained under the pretext of offering the complainant a lead role in a film and inducing investment in its production.
Based on this FIR, the ED recorded an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in August 2025. The agency alleged that the funds generated from the cheating case constituted “proceeds of crime.” The ED claimed that the applicant, Sandeepa Virk, knowingly received Rs 1.03 crores of these funds in her bank accounts and utilized them to acquire immovable properties, including a flat in Andheri (West), Mumbai, and two properties in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. It was further alleged that she had destroyed her mobile phone prior to the search operation.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the applicant had no role in the predicate offence. He emphasized that while the FIR was registered in 2016 regarding transactions from 2008-2013, the police charge sheet filed in 2017 did not name her as an accused. He contended that the ECIR was recorded nine years after the FIR, and the applicant’s arrest in 2025 was arbitrary.
The defense heavily relied on the fact that the main accused, Amit Gupta, has been declared a proclaimed offender and has not been arrested by the ED, despite his counsel appearing in PMLA proceedings. It was argued that since the main accused is absconding, the trial in the predicate offence is stalled, and keeping the applicant in custody indefinitely would amount to punitive detention.
Opposing the bail, ED Counsel Mr. Samrat Goswami argued that money laundering is an independent offence. The agency asserted that the applicant was a direct beneficiary of the proceeds of crime and had actively participated in projecting the tainted money as untainted. The ED maintained that the “twin conditions” for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA should apply, arguing that the proviso for women is discretionary, not mandatory.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the bail application, focusing on the legislative intent of the PMLA and the specific circumstances of the case.
- Applicability of Section 45 Proviso: The Court referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, reaffirming that for a woman accused, the rigours of the “twin conditions” under Section 45(1)(ii) need not be satisfied. The Court held that while the proviso confers discretion, the applicant had successfully made out a prima facie case for bail.
- Stalled Trial and Main Accused Absconding: The Court highlighted the peculiar timeline of the case, where the predicate offence investigation began in 2016, but the PMLA case was initiated in 2025. Justice Sharma observed:
“The trial in the predicate offence is not proceeding since the only accused, i.e. Amit Gupta is absconding… The applicant has been in judicial custody for more than four months… and the trial will take time to conclude.” - Lack of Culpability in Predicate Offence: The bench noted that the applicant was neither charge-sheeted by the police in the scheduled offence nor summoned in the private complaint. Additionally, the Court considered that a substantial part of the alleged amount (approx. Rs 2.7 crores) had reportedly been returned to the complainant.
Conditions Imposed
The Court ordered the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 2,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount. She was directed to surrender her passport, not leave the country without permission, and cooperate fully with the investigation.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sandeepa Virk v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 4331/2025
- Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
