Not Chargesheeted Or Summoned In Predicate Case, Woman Accused Gets Bail Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), noting that she was neither chargesheeted by the police nor summoned by the Magistrate in the predicate offence.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed,
“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.”
Applicant Sandeepa Virk was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in August 2025 in connection with an ECIR registered nearly nine years after the alleged predicate offence.
The predicate offence stemmed from an FIR registered in 2016 alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in relation to investments made on the assurance of casting the complainant as a lead actress in a film.
While the FIR named multiple accused, the police chargesheet filed in 2017 was only against the principal accused, Amit Gupta. Applicant was neither chargesheeted nor attributed any role during police investigation.
Subsequently, when the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the Judicial Magistrate declined to summon the Applicant, expressly recording that no prima facie case was made out against her, while also noting that a substantial amount of over ₹2.7 crore had already been returned to the complainant.
Despite this, the ED registered an ECIR in August 2025 and arrested the Applicant within 24 hours. The prosecution complaint under the PMLA was filed in October 2025.
The Court took note of the fact that the main accused in the predicate offence was declared a proclaimed offender but remained unarrested, even as the Applicant continued in custody.
It also observed that the Applicant, being a woman, was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, under which the rigours of the twin conditions do not apply to women.
The Court further observed that a sum of approximately ₹2.7 crores has 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 said and granted bail.
Appearance: Mr. Anurag Alhuwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Samrat Goswami, Panel counsel for DoE with Mr. Shrinivas Sinha and Mr. Vivek, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Sandeepa Virk v. ED
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 4331/2025