Summary: Sandeepa Virk was granted bail by the Delhi High Court in a case involving alleged money laundering linked to a film scam. The decision considered her being a woman and the specific details of the case.
On December 27, 2025, the Delhi High Court, led by Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma, made an important decision in the case involving Sandeepa Virk. She was charged under laws related to money laundering connected to a scam from 2016. The Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) accused her of being part of a scheme where people were tricked into paying money for promised roles in a film.
The Directorate of Enforcement claimed that Sandeepa Virk, along with Amit Gupta (also known as Nageshwar Gupta), tricked a complainant and her family out of about ₹6 crores. They were promised leading roles in a film that was never made. The money was allegedly used to buy properties and support a lavish lifestyle.
"The accused persons had tricked the complainant and her family members out of about ₹6 crores," stated the DoE.
Sandeepa Virk was arrested on August 12, 2025, soon after the case was recorded. Her first request for bail was denied on November 4, 2025. The DoE argued that she was involved in hiding money through fake online shopping websites and used the money to buy properties in Mumbai and Delhi.
The defense argued that the accusations were based on transactions from 2008 to 2013, and no charges were brought against Virk until much later. They highlighted that a large part of the money had already been returned to the complainant, and the main accused, Amit Gupta, had not been caught.
"The applicant is a woman with ties to the community, and is neither likely to run away nor likely to interfere with the course of justice," argued the defense.
Judge Sharma acknowledged that the case involved serious accusations but noted that the applicant had been in jail for over four months. Considering her being a woman and the fact that the main accused was still not caught, the court decided to grant bail under certain conditions.
The court made it clear that this decision does not reflect an opinion on whether she is guilty or not. The judgment was uploaded on the court's website on December 27, 2025.
