ARVIND DHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Bail in Economic Offences: Prolonged Incarceration and Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 as Grounds for Granting Bail under PMLA.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 12
Decision Date: 06-01-2026
List of Laws
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA); The Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); The Indian Penal Code; The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; The Companies Act; Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
- Facts: Arvind Dham, former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was accused of fraud involving diversion and siphoning of bank loans amounting to Rs. 33,400 crores. FIRs were registered against him, and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). He was arrested on 09.07.2024, and a prosecution complaint was filed. The Special Judge dismissed his bail application, and the High Court rejected his application for regular bail.
- Procedural Posture: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi, which rejected the appellant's application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS') read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA').
- Issue: Whether the appellant, accused of economic offences under the PMLA, is entitled to bail, considering the prolonged incarceration, the stage of trial, and the allegations against him, particularly in light of Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to a speedy trial?
- Holding: Yes, the appellant is entitled to bail. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and directed the release of Arvind Dham on bail, subject to conditions to be determined by the Trial Court.
- Reasoning: The Court considered the prolonged incarceration of the appellant (approximately 16 months and 20 days), the fact that the trial had not commenced, and the documentary nature of the evidence, which was already in the custody of the prosecution. The Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and held that prolonged pretrial detention cannot be allowed to become a form of punishment. The Court also noted that the investigation qua the appellant had concluded, and the allegation of influencing witnesses was not credible given the appellant's custody. Citing V. Senthil Balaji's case, the Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant grant of bail, especially where the maximum sentence is seven years and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. The Court found the delay in the trial attributable to the respondent.
🔒 For Members Only