Actress Sandeepa Virk Denied Bail By Delhi Court In ₹6 Crore Money Laundering Case Linked To Fake Film Investment
Pranav B Prem
The Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, has refused to grant bail to actress and social media influencer Sandeepa Virk in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which arises from an alleged ₹6 crore fraud linked to a fake film investment scheme. The Court observed that the allegations were “grave and serious in nature” and that her release at this stage could adversely affect the ongoing investigation. The order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vijay Shankar on November 4, 2025, dismissed Virk’s regular bail plea filed under Section 439 of the CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 91/2016 registered at Police Station Phase-8, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, based on a complaint by Jasneet Kaur. The complainant alleged that she and her family were duped of nearly ₹6 crore by Sandeepa Virk and co-accused Amit Gupta alias Nageshwar Gupta on the pretext of securing her a lead role in a film and encouraging investment in its production.
While the Punjab Police filed a charge sheet only against co-accused Amit Gupta—who was later declared a proclaimed offender—the Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in August 2025, nearly nine years after the initial FIR. The ECIR invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, alleging that both accused had laundered the proceeds of crime through various channels.
Prosecution’s Case
The ED alleged that Sandeepa Virk played an active role in “creating undue influence and misrepresentation” to induce the complainant to part with the money. It claimed that she had used a fake e-commerce website, “Hyboocare.com,” as a front to project tainted funds as legitimate business income. The website purportedly sold “FDA-approved herbal beauty products” from a Delhi address, but the agency found that no such products existed and that the platform was used to channel laundered money. According to the ED, Virk had no genuine source of income and had acquired multiple immovable assets, including a flat in Mumbai jointly owned by her, Amit Gupta, and one Kamla, allegedly purchased with the proceeds of crime. It was further alleged that she had financed a luxury lifestyle, spent heavily on foreign travel, and invested in two additional properties in Delhi.
The prosecution also claimed that Virk had destroyed her mobile phone, which contained critical evidence, terming it a deliberate act to obstruct the investigation. The agency maintained that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and that granting bail could hamper efforts to trace the full money trail and identify all beneficiaries.
Defence Arguments
Virk’s counsel argued that she had been falsely implicated due to her past personal relationship with co-accused Amit Gupta. It was contended that she was not named in the original FIR, had no possession of proceeds of crime, and had cooperated with the investigation. The defence emphasized that the prosecution complaint had already been filed and the investigation was substantially complete, making custodial detention unnecessary.
Her counsel further invoked the second proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, submitting that as a woman, she was entitled to the Court’s discretion in granting bail. It was also argued that Virk had a clean professional background, earned legitimate income through acting and business ventures, and had been in judicial custody since August 18, 2025. The defence reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail the exception.”
Court’s Observations
Rejecting the bail plea, the Court held that the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA must be satisfied even when the accused is a woman, and the discretion under the proviso was not automatic. The Judge observed that the allegations, supported by documentary material, reflected systematic deceit and laundering of public money, warranting continued detention. The Court 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.” It further emphasized that economic offences are of a distinct class, requiring stricter consideration in bail matters, as they pose a threat to the financial integrity of the nation. The Court noted that the case was still at the stage of cognizance, with key witnesses yet to be examined, and that releasing the accused could prejudice the prosecution’s case.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Sandeepa Virk’s bail application, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on the investigation outweighed any mitigating factors. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the jail superintendent and appended with information regarding free legal aid facilities available to the accused for pursuing appellate remedies.
Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Amit Gupta @ Nageshwar Gupta & Anr.
Case No: CT No.19/2025
Coram: Shri. Vijay Shankar
