TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licant herein). The allegations in the said FIR are that the accused persons had duped the complainant and her family members of an amount of approximately Rs.6 crores 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 is further the case of prosecution that a charge-sheet has already been filed in the aforesaid FIR and that accused Amit Gupta @ Nageshwar Gupta was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, SAS Nagar, Mohali. It is stated that the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is a scheduled offence under the PMLA, and on the said basis, the present ECIR being ECIR/HIU-II/24/2025 dated 11.08.2025 was recorded for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. 3. According to the DoE, the present applicant, Sandeepa Virk, was engaged in creating undue influence by misrepresenting herself and allegedly duping various persons by inducing them to part with money. It is alleged that the applicant used a fake e-commerce website for the purposes of money laundering and claimed herself to be the owner of the website hybo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge-sheet dated 18.03.2017 was filed only against Amit Gupta @ Nageshwar Gupta under Section 406 of IPC, and no role was attributed to the applicant or any other person. This clearly demonstrates that, even during the police investigation, no material was found against the applicant. It is submitted that the complainant thereafter had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 17.07.2017 against Amit Gupta and other persons including the applicant. However, vide order dated 15.02.2020, the learned JMFC, SAS Nagar, Mohali declined to take cognizance against any accused except Amit Gupta and also recorded that a substantial amount of Rs.2,71,78,200/- had already been refunded to the complainant. Subsequently, charges were framed only against Amit Gupta on 14.12.2023, and he was declared a proclaimed offender on 21.10.2024. Thus, it is clear that the applicant had no role in the commission of alleged offence. The learned senior counsel further submits that despite the FIR being of the year 2016 and the applicant not being charge-sheeted therein, the DoE recorded the present ECIR only on 11.08.2025, i.e. nine years later. The applicant was searched and arrested on 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y laundering as an ordinary criminal prosecution governed by liberal bail principles, and such an approach runs contrary to the express legislative intent of the PMLA. It is submitted that the applicant proceeds on an erroneous premise that her non-arraignment or exoneration in the predicate case for offence under IPC absolves her of liability under the PMLA. It is stated that the offence of money laundering is a distinct, independent, and continuing offence. Even a person not directly involved in the commission of the scheduled offence may nonetheless be guilty of money laundering if such person knowingly assists in the concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property. It is contended that the material on record demonstrates that approximately Rs.6 crores were dishonestly obtained by co-accused Amit Gupta @ Nageshwar Gupta from the complainant and her family on the basis of false assurances. Out of these tainted funds, a sum of approximately Rs.1,03,30,000/- was directly transferred into the bank accounts of the applicant. These transfers are neither denied nor satisfactorily explained. It is further submitted that the proceeds of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed on behalf of the applicant, as well as the respondent-DoE, and has carefully perused the material placed on record. Analysis & Findings 8. At the outset, the case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant and her family members were allegedly induced by co-accused Amit Gupta @ Nageshwar Gupta, to part with a sum of about Rs.6 crores, on the false assurance that the complainant would be cast as the lead actress in a film and that the said amount was required for investment in the production of the film. It is the case of the prosecution that the said amount, having been obtained by deception, constituted proceeds of crime arising out of the scheduled offence (for which FIR No. 91/2016 was registered at P.S. Phase-8, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab) and was thereafter routed through bank accounts and utilised for the acquisition of immovable properties and other assets, with the object of projecting the same as untainted. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation is that she knowingly received part of the proceeds of crime in her bank accounts, utilised such funds for acquisition of immovable properties, including Flat No. 2103 at Andheri (Wes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held as under: "On its plain reading, the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA. Therefore, when a woman applies for bail, the twin conditions in clause (ii) need not be satisfied. Though we have granted time to the learned Additional Solicitor General to make submissions in support of the submission that notwithstanding the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA, rigours of clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will apply even to a woman, today the learned Solicitor General appears and states that rigours of clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply to a woman, in view of proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA." 12. 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. 13. Even if this Court were to accept the submission of the Directorate of Enfor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial custody for more than four months, the allegations relate to transactions of the years 2008-2013, the FIR for scheduled offence was registered only in 2016, the ECIR was recorded only in the year 2025, the main accused has been declared a proclaimed offender and remains 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, a substantial part of the alleged amount had already been returned to the complainant by the main accused, the investigation qua applicant has been completed by the DoE and the prosecution complaint has already been filed, and the fact that the trial will take time to conclude as 24 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and the fact that trial in the predicate offence is not proceeding since the only accused, i.e. Amit Gupta is absconding - this Court finds no ground to further keep the applicant in judicial custody. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, at least one of whom will be a ....