While granting bail to a woman booked in a money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the application for bail can be considered on general principles governing the grant of bail and the embargo of the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA can be relaxed in the case of a woman accused.

The applicant had approached the High Court, seeking a grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025), the Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Thus, it stands settled that in the case of a woman accused, the embargo of the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA can be relaxed, and the application for bail can be considered on general principles governing grant of bail, albeit keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations.”

Senior Advocate Anurag Alhuwalia represented the Petitioner, while Panel counsel for DoE Samrat Goswami represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was registered for the commission of an offence under Sections 406,420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against some accused persons, including the applicant. It was alleged that the accused persons had duped the complainant and her family members of an amount of approximately ₹6 crore on the pretext of offering the complainant the role of a lead actress in a film and inducing her to invest money in the production of the said film. It was stated that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC was a scheduled offence under the PMLA, and on this basis, the ECIR was recorded for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. According to the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE), the applicant was engaged in creating undue influence by misrepresenting herself and allegedly duping various persons by inducing them to part with money.

It was alleged that the applicant used a fake e-commerce website for the purposes of money laundering and claimed to be the owner of a website which purportedly sold FDA-approved beauty products. It was alleged that upon verification, the products listed on the said website were found to be fake. It was further alleged that the accused Amit Gupta and the applicant utilised the proceeds of crime generated from the aforesaid scheduled offence to acquire immovable properties. On the aforesaid allegations, it was asserted that the applicant actively participated in the process and activities connected with the offence of money laundering and was knowingly involved in the use of the proceeds of crime, thereby committing the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA and punishable under Section 4. The applicant came to be arrested. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Special Court vide the impugned order.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that when the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate, while declining to take cognisance against the applicant, specifically recorded that no offence was made out against her even for summoning. “Thus, the record reflects that the applicant was not found culpable at the stage of police investigation, nor was any prima facie case found against her by the learned Magistrate in the private complaint proceedings”, it stated.

It was also noticed that the proceedings under the PMLA were initiated much later, with the ECIR being recorded only in the year 2025, almost a decade after the alleged transactions. A sum of approximately ₹2.7 crores had already been returned to the complainant out of the alleged amount of about ₹6 crores. “Therefore, at this stage, the case cannot be treated as one involving concealment or projection of the entire alleged amount, it stated.

The Bench thus took note of various facts such as the applicant had been in judicial custody for more than four months, the allegations related to transactions of the years 2008-2013, the FIR for the scheduled offence was registered only in 2016, and the ECIR was recorded only in the year 2025. It was further noticed that the main accused was declared a proclaimed offender and remained unarrested in the present case. The applicant was neither charge-sheeted for the predicate offence by the police nor summoned in the private complaint case.

Considering that a substantial part of the alleged amount had already been returned to the complainant by the main accused, the investigation with respect to the applicant was completed by the DoE and the fact that trial in the predicate offence was not proceeding since the only accused, i.e. Amit Gupta was absconding, the Bench granted regular bail to her on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 2 lakh with two sureties.

Cause Title: Sandeepa Virk v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:12026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anurag Alhuwalia, Advocate Ashish Upadhyay

Respondent: Panel counsel for DoE Samrat Goswami, Advocates Shrinivas Sinha, Vivek

Click here to read/download Order




Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.