SC Grants Bail To Amtek Group Ex-Chairperson In Money Laundering Case
The top court set aside a Delhi High Court order which had declined to grant bail to Arvind Dham.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : January 6, 2026 at 1:35 PM IST
|Updated : January 6, 2026 at 7:22 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham in a money laundering case in connection with Rs 27,000 crore bank fraud. The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe. The top court set aside a Delhi High Court order which had declined to grant bail to him.
Justice Aradhe, who was sitting in a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha, pronounced the verdict. Justice Aradhe said the court has allowed Dham's appeal in the case.
In August last year, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Dham. The high court had said that premature release could risk undermining efforts to secure accountability.
"With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, economic offences such as money laundering have emerged as a serious threat to the financial system of the country. These offences pose a significant challenge for investigating agencies, given the complex and intricate nature of the transactions and the involvement of multiple actors," the high court had said.
"The complexity of the case, the multiplicity of transactions, and the layered corporate structures necessarily entail a protracted trial," it had said. Earlier, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally attached assets worth over Rs 550 crore of Amtek Group firms, an insolvent automotive equipment manufacturing company, under the anti-money-laundering law.
Properties worth Rs 5,115.31 crore were attached by the agency in September 2024. The ED probe began under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on the directions of the Supreme Court on February 27, 2024.
Action was taken against Amtek Auto Limited, ARG Limited, ACIL Limited, Metalyst Forging Limited, Castex Technologies Limited and Arvind Dham, apart from some others, the ED had said.
The apex court observed that all economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another.
"Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis”, it added, citing a 2022 judgment.
The bench said it is well settled that if the state or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
"The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment", said the top court.
The apex court said that economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail. The bench said the maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years, and the appellant is in custody for the past 16 months and 20 days.
"There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence, which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", said the apex court.
The bench said the terms and conditions for the grant of bail shall be fixed by the trial court. "In addition, the appellant will provide one telephone/mobile No. on which he can be contacted by the Officers of Directorate of Enforcement to ascertain his whereabouts while he is on bail. The appellant shall surrender his passport to the Trial Court and will not leave India without permission of the Trial Court," the bench said.
Read More
