DATE: 06/01/2026
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice
N.V. Anjaria
FACTS:
The appellant, Arvind Dham, a 64-year-old
former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL) and
non-executive Director of M/s. ACIL Ltd., part of the Amtek Group, faced
allegations of being the ultimate beneficiary of a orchestrated fraud involving
diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, causing
substantial losses to public sector banks. In 2017-2018, Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Amtek Group entities. FIRs were
registered on 21.12.2022 by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra under Sections
120B, 420, 406, 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, alleging fraud of INR 385.35 crores and INR 289 crores,
with the appellant among 27 accused. Based on these, the Enforcement
Directorate (ED) registered two ECIRs on 21.03.2023 for money laundering. A
writ petition (W.P. Criminal No. 246 of 2022) alleged Amtek Group frauds of Rs.
33,400 crores, prompting a Supreme Court order on 27.02.2024 directing CBI and
SFIO to investigate and cooperate with ED.
The appellant responded to PMLA Section 50
summons on 19.06.2024, underwent searches on 20.06.2024, and was arrested on
09.07.2024. A prosecution complaint was filed on 06.09.2024 against 16 accused
(6 individuals, 10 companies), followed by a supplementary on 02.08.2025
against 40 accused (22 individuals, 18 companies), with 208 witnesses cited and
210 to be examined; only the appellant among 28 individuals was arrested and in
custody for about 16 months and 20 days as of the appeal. Bail applications
were rejected by the Special Judge on 21.01.2025 (proviso to Section 45 PMLA
inapplicable) and Delhi High Court on 19.08.2025 under Section 483 BNSS r/w
Section 45 PMLA, despite interim medical bail from 11.03.2025 to 01.04.2025. The
appellant, suffering multiple ailments, argued prolonged custody violated
Article 21, investigation was complete qua him (per 20.08.2025 order), no
cognizance taken, trial delayed (8 months due to ED's challenge), no tampering
risk as evidence documentary, and exaggerated fraud figures (INR 38,000 crores
vs. actual INR 673.35 crores).
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court
was whether the appellant should be granted regular bail under Section 45 PMLA
r/w Section 483 BNSS, weighing the twin conditions for bail in money laundering
cases against the gravity of economic offenses (alleged fraud/siphoning of over
INR 673.35 crores, exaggerated to INR 38,000 crores), prolonged pre-trial
detention of 16 months and 20 days violating Article 21's right to speedy trial
and liberty, completion of investigation qua the appellant, stalled trial (no
cognizance, 210 witnesses, document scrutiny stage), unsubstantiated claims of
witness tampering/evidence dissipation, trial delays attributable to ED, and
whether economic offenses justify blanket bail denial despite maximum 7-year
sentence and documentary evidence.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal,
quashing the Delhi High Court's order dated 19.08.2025, and directed the
appellant's release on bail pending trial in ECIR Nos. ECIR/GNZO/13/2024 and
ECIR/GNZO/14/2024 before the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-02, Rouse Avenue
District Court, under PMLA. Bail terms/conditions to be fixed by the Trial
Court, with additional mandates: provide a contact mobile number to ED,
surrender passport to Trial Court, and not leave India without Trial Court
permission.
The Court underscored that bail in economic
offenses requires case-specific assessment of gravity, including prescribed
sentence (maximum 7 years under PMLA), rather than uniform denial for all such
crimes, as they vary in nature and cannot be homogenized per precedents like P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) and Satender Kumar Antil v.
CBI (2022). It invoked Article 21's right to speedy trial and liberty,
applicable regardless of offense nature, holding that prolonged pre-trial
detention without trial progress converts custody into punishment, as in Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh (2024), Manish Sisodia (2024), V. Senthil Balaji (2024), and
Padam Chand Jain (2025). Here, the appellant's 16 months and 20 days
incarceration, with investigation concluded (per 20.08.2025 order), no
cognizance, trial at document scrutiny, 210 witnesses, and no foreseeable
commencement (ED's 27.09.2025 day-to-day hearing application unresolved after 3
months), violated these rights; evidence being documentary and seized
eliminated tampering risks. The appellant cooperated pre-arrest (appearances on
19.06.2024, 02.07.2024, 09.07.2024), was the sole arrestee among 28, and
precedents granted bail for 3-17 months detention in similar cases.
The Court rejected ED's claims as
untenable: witness tampering allegation against Ms. Anuradha Kapur (instructed
not to join) was incredulous, as appellant's custody from 09.07.2024 predated
her witness arrayal on 02.08.2025; property dissipation (Alwar/Panipat on
24.12.2024/17.02.2025) linked to M/s. Marichika Properties lacked appellant
connection or signatory evidence. Trial delay (8 months) was solely
ED-attributable, challenging Special Judge's 07.09.2024 notice, securing stay,
and withdrawing on 23.05.2025. Exaggerated fraud (INR 38,000 crores vs.
predicate INR 673.35 crores) did not justify custody, per settled law against
classifying economic offenses for bail denial. Balancing PMLA objectives with
Article 21, the Court prioritized constitutional protections, granting bail
with safeguards against flight/tampering, as appellant posed no such risk and
family cooperated.
ANALYSIS:
In the Supreme Court case of Arvind Dham v.
Directorate of Enforcement, the appellant, a 64-year-old former promoter of the
Amtek Group accused of masterminding a fraud involving diversion and siphoning
of funds leading to losses of INR 673.35 crores (with exaggerated claims of INR
38,000 crores), successfully challenged the denial of regular bail under
Section 45 of the PMLA read with Section 483 of the BNSS. The Court quashed the
Delhi High Court's order dated 19.08.2025, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial
detention of over 16 months and 20 days, amid a stalled trial with no
cognizance taken, 210 witnesses, and documentary evidence already secured,
violated Article 21's guarantees of liberty and speedy trial. The decision
highlighted that economic offenses, despite their gravity, do not warrant blanket
bail denial, particularly when the maximum sentence is seven years and
investigation qua the appellant had concluded, with him being the sole arrestee
among 28 individuals and having cooperated fully.
The Court's reasoning balanced the
stringent twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA against constitutional
imperatives, rejecting the ED's unsubstantiated allegations of witness
tampering (incredulous given custody timelines) and asset dissipation (no
proven link to the appellant). Drawing on precedents like P. Chidambaram
(2020), Satender Kumar Antil (2022), Manish Sisodia (2024), and V. Senthil
Balaji (2024), it underscored that indefinite detention turns custody into
punishment, especially with trial delays attributable solely to the ED's
actions, and economic crimes vary too widely for uniform treatment. By granting
bail with safeguards like passport surrender and contact provision, the
judgment reinforces judicial discretion to prioritize Article 21 over special
law rigors in cases of undue hardship, setting a benchmark for similar PMLA
matters involving prolonged incarceration without trial progress.
info@adhwaitha.com