Delhi HC refuses to relax Rs 20 lakh security condition for actress accused in ED case; upholds trial court order

Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Virk's petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, which had declined to relax the conditions imposed for the release of her passport and permission to travel to Frankfurt, Germany, between June 15 and July 15, 2026.

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court order requiring actress Sandeepa Virk to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs 20 lakh as security before travelling abroad, holding that the condition was just, fair and reasonable and necessary to secure her return to India while criminal proceedings remain pending against her. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Virk's petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, which had declined to relax the conditions imposed for the release of her passport and permission to travel to Frankfurt, Germany, between June 15 and July 15, 2026.

The High Court observed that the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court were specifically aimed at ensuring the petitioner's timely return to India and continued participation in the criminal proceedings pending against her. The Court noted that merely securing a professional engagement abroad could not, by itself, justify dilution of such conditions. "The mere existence of a professional engagement, irrespective of its genuineness, cannot by itself constitute a sufficient ground to warrant dilution of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Court," the Court observed.

Virk had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an order dated May 21, 2026, through which the Sessions Court rejected her application for modification of conditions attached to an earlier order permitting foreign travel. Under the earlier order dated May 6, 2026, the Sessions Court had allowed her request for the release of her passport and permission to travel to Germany. However, it directed her to furnish an FDR of Rs 20 lakh as security and give an undertaking to appear before the court. It further stipulated that if she failed to return and report back, the amount would stand forfeited without further notice.

Appearing for Virk, counsel submitted that she had received an acting proposal from M/s Folk Studios and was required to travel abroad for the project. It was argued that because of the pending criminal proceedings and the stigma attached to them, she had not been receiving active work opportunities except for the present assignment. The petitioner also contended that substantial assets belonging to her had already been frozen or attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and, therefore, she lacked sufficient liquid funds to furnish an FDR of Rs 20 lakh.

The Court, however, found the plea of financial hardship unconvincing. It noted that no documentary material had been placed on record to substantiate the claim that the petitioner was incapable of furnishing the required security amount. Justice Karia observed that the assertion of financial incapacity remained unsubstantiated and that the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court adequately balanced the petitioner's request to travel abroad with the need to ensure her presence in the ongoing proceedings.

Holding that no sufficient ground had been made out to interfere with the Sessions Court's order or to modify any of the conditions imposed, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court concluded that the apprehension regarding the petitioner's return was genuine, particularly since she sought permission to travel overseas while criminal proceedings against her were still pending, and therefore, the security condition could not be termed excessive or unreasonable. (ANI)