News Citation : 2026 LN (SC) 12
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Arvind Dham, former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., in a money laundering case, holding that his continued incarceration for over 16 months without commencement of trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Delhi High Court’s order rejecting regular bail and quashed the earlier decision of the Special Court. The Court made it clear that the seriousness of allegations cannot override constitutional guarantees, and prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to operate as punishment.
The case stemmed from FIRs registered on December 21, 2022, at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, alleging frauds of ₹385.35 crore and ₹289 crore respectively under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on these FIRs, the Directorate of Enforcement registered two ECIRs in March 2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, alleging laundering of proceeds of crime. Dham was named along with 27 other accused.
According to the ED, Dham was the ultimate beneficiary of a well-planned fraud involving diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, causing substantial loss to public sector banks. Dham, however, appeared before the ED in response to summons in June 2024, following which searches were conducted at his residence. He was arrested on July 9, 2024.
A prosecution complaint was filed in September 2024 against 16 accused, followed by a supplementary complaint in August 2025 against 40 accused. Despite this, only Dham was arrested. As many as 208 prosecution witnesses were cited, and cognizance of the complaint had not yet been taken.
Rejecting the ED’s objections, the Supreme Court noted that the maximum punishment under the PMLA is seven years and that Dham had already spent about 16 months and 20 days in custody. The Court observed that there was no realistic likelihood of the trial commencing soon, particularly when proceedings were still at the stage of scrutiny of documents and over 200 witnesses were yet to be examined.
Justice Alok Aradhe, writing for the Bench, reiterated that economic offences cannot be treated as a separate class warranting automatic denial of bail. Relying on precedents including V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate and Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, the Court held that statutory restrictions cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
The Court also rejected allegations that Dham attempted to influence witnesses or dissipate attached properties, describing the charge of instructing a witness not to cooperate as “wholly incredulous.” It found that an eight-month delay in proceedings was attributable to the ED itself due to a petition filed by it before the High Court, which was later withdrawn.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that Dham be released on bail during the pendency of trial, subject to conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court. These include surrender of his passport, restrictions on foreign travel, and furnishing contact details to the ED.
