The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a plea by actor and social media influencer Sandeepa Virk seeking relaxation of conditions imposed while granting her permission to travel to Germany for a film project in connection with a money laundering case.
The matter came up before Justice Tejas Karia in a petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to modify conditions attached to an earlier order permitting foreign travel. Under the order, she was required to deposit a ₹20 lakh fixed deposit receipt (FDR) as security and intimate the Indian Embassy in Germany upon her arrival and return.
Cousel for the petitioner argued that the conditions effectively rendered the travel permission illusory because she lacked the financial means to comply with them. She submitted that several of her properties had already been attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and that she did not possess sufficient liquid funds to furnish a ₹20 lakh security deposit.
“
“I am an actor by profession and a social media influencer. These are my prime years. I don’t have that much amount. I can deposit ₹5 lakh. That is my capacity. My fundamental rights are being curtailed because of such illusory conditions. Although I have been granted permission, what is the use of such a condition when I cannot even avail it₹” she argued.
She further contended that she was not the principal accused in the predicate offence and relied on observations made in the Delhi High Court’s earlier bail order, which noted that she had neither been charge-sheeted during the original police investigation nor found prima facie culpable in private complaint proceedings.
It also pointed out that approximately ₹2.7 crore had already been returned to the complainant out of the alleged ₹6 crore involved in the dispute. Stressing that there was no risk of her absconding, she submitted:
“
“There is no apprehension that I will abscond. My parents are residing here in India. It is just for this work purpose.”
Justice Karia questioned one of the objections raised by the petitioner and observed:
“
“I understand FDR, you don’t have money, but what is the problem with informing the Indian Embassy in Germany₹”
Opposing the plea, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate argued that the conditions imposed by the trial court were reasonable and necessary. The agency submitted that the travel offer relied upon by SandeepaVirk was itself subject to further formalities, including execution of a formal agreement, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated compliance with those prerequisites. The ED further argued that the ₹20 lakh FDR was a temporary safeguard that would be returned upon her return to India and maintained that there were sufficient grounds to retain the existing conditions.