The courtroom was unusually quiet when the order finally came, but the implications were anything but. On Friday, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Sandeepa Virk in a money laundering case investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement, flagging delays, selective arrests, and old allegations that had gathered dust over the years.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s decision closed a long bail hearing that repeatedly circled back to one uncomfortable question: why was the woman accused behind bars while the alleged mastermind remained out?
Read also:- Redefining Aravallis: Supreme Court Steps In, But Will Monday’s Hearing Freeze Mining Across the Region?
Background
The case traces its roots back to a 2016 FIR from Mohali, where a complainant alleged she and her family were cheated of nearly ₹6 crore after being promised a lead role in a film. The money, she claimed, was taken in the name of film production.
While the police eventually filed a charge sheet only against Amit Gupta, the Enforcement Directorate registered its money laundering case (ECIR) much later, in August 2025, treating the cheating offence as a “scheduled offence” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Read also:- J&K High Court Pulls Up Magistrate for Issuing Warrants After Cheque Bounce Settlement
Sandeepa Virk was arrested within a day of the ECIR being recorded. The ED alleged that over ₹1 crore of the “tainted money” landed in her accounts and was used to buy properties, including a Mumbai flat later transferred solely in her name. There were also claims of a fake beauty-products website and destruction of a mobile phone, which investigators said was key evidence.
Court’s Observations
Listening to arguments, the court appeared unconvinced that mere passage of money, without more, justified prolonged custody. The bench noted that Virk was never charge-sheeted in the original cheating case and was not even summoned when the complainant filed a private complaint later on.
“The record reflects that no prima facie role was attributed to the applicant at those stages,” the court observed, pointing out that a substantial ₹2.7 crore had already been returned to the complainant.
On the legal side, the judge relied on the Supreme Court’s recent clarification that women accused under PMLA are not bound by the stringent “twin conditions” for bail. As the bench put it, “the embargo under Section 45 can be relaxed in the case of a woman accused.”
What also weighed heavily was the timeline. The alleged transactions dated back to 2008–2013. The ED stepped in nearly a decade later. Meanwhile, the principal accused, declared a proclaimed offender in the predicate case, had still not been arrested. “Continued incarceration in such circumstances,” the bench noted, “would border on punitive detention.”
Read also:- Madras High Court Defers Plea to Halt ‘Parasakthi’ Release, Seeks Report From Writers’ Body
Decision
Taking all this together, the High Court granted regular bail to Sandeepa Virk, directing her to furnish a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two sureties, surrender her passport, remain available to investigators, and attend trial proceedings regularly.
The court made it clear that the observations were limited to the bail stage and would not influence the trial. With that clarification, the bail application was disposed of, bringing temporary relief to the accused while the larger case continues to unfold.
Case Title: Sandeepa Virk vs Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: Bail Application No. 4331 of 2025
Case Type: Regular Bail Application (Money Laundering Case under PMLA)
Decision Date: 27 December 2025
