Delhi HC Grants Bail in PMLA Case, Clarifies Discretionary Scope of Section 45 Proviso for Women - 2025-12-27

Delhi High Court Granting Bail: Navigating the Intersection of Gender and PMLA Law

In a significant ruling delivered on December 27, 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed the complexities of bail in cases involving the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Presided over by Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the Court granted regular bail to Sandeepa Virk, a petitioner who challenged her incarceration in connection with a multi-crore financial scandal. The judgment provides a vital clarification on the application of the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA concerning women applicants.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Tale of Cinema and Deception

The case originated from an FIR filed in 2016 at SAS Nagar, Mohali, accusing individuals of duping victims of nearly ₹6 crores under the pretext of offering roles in a film production. While the accused, Amit Gupta, was declared a proclaimed offender, the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) subsequently initiated money laundering proceedings in 2025, alleging that the petitioner, Sandeepa Virk, knowingly benefited from these proceeds to fund a luxurious lifestyle and acquire immovable properties.

Legal Contentions: Fairness vs. Statutory Rigor

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest was arbitrary, noting that the petitioner was neither charge-sheeted in the predicate offence nor found culpable during previous investigations that concluded years prior. Crucially, the defense highlighted that as a woman, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, which allows the Court to move beyond the stringent "twin conditions" usually required for bail in money laundering cases.

Conversely, the DoE maintained that money laundering is an independent, continuing offence. The agency argued that the transfer of over ₹1 crore into the applicant’s accounts and the possession of assets derived from tainted funds necessitated continued detention, particularly given allegations of destroyed evidence (a missing mobile phone).

The Court’s Reasoning: Balancing Discretion and Justice

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that while the proviso to Section 45(1) does not grant an "automatic entitlement" to bail, it unequivocally removes the rigid constraints of the twin conditions for female applicants. Relying on the precedent set in Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement , the Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised by evaluating the totality of the circumstances.

The Court noted several mitigating factors: the passage of a near-decade since the underlying transactions, the fact that the principal accused remains at large despite the DoE’s involvement, and that the petitioner had already spent over four months in custody.

Key Observations

The judgment features several critical remarks regarding the fairness of the prosecution's approach:

* "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."

* "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."

* "Considering the cumulative effect of these circumstances... this Court finds no ground to further keep the applicant in judicial custody."

Implications of the Verdict

By granting bail, the Court has reinforced the principle that financial investigation statutes cannot be used to justify indefinite detention, especially when an applicant is a woman and the primary architects of the alleged crime have not yet been brought to justice. This ruling serves as a reminder to investigating agencies that even under the PMLA, the exercise of bail discretion must remain tempered by procedural equity and the specific protections granted to vulnerable classes of persons under the law.

The applicant has been released subject to personal bonds, the surrender of her passport, and strict instructions to cooperate with future judicial proceedings.