The Supreme Court on Tuesday brought an end to the prolonged incarceration of industrialist Arvind Dham, holding that continued custody without the start of trial amounted to a violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty. The court set aside the Delhi High Court’s refusal of bail and ordered Dham’s release in a high-profile money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
Background of the Case
Arvind Dham, former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in July 2024 in connection with alleged bank loan frauds linked to the Amtek Group of companies. The case stemmed from FIRs lodged by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, accusing company officials of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption involving hundreds of crores.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Man Booked for Online Posts, Says Peaceful Criticism
Based on these FIRs, the Enforcement Directorate registered money laundering cases, alleging that public funds were diverted through layered corporate structures, with Dham described as the ultimate beneficiary.
Dham remained in custody for over 16 months, while prosecution complaints were filed but had not yet crossed the stage of judicial scrutiny.
Senior counsel for the appellant argued that Dham’s continued detention had become punitive. Emphasis was placed on his age, medical conditions, and the fact that the investigation against him had already concluded.
The defence pointed out that although 28 individuals were named in the case, only Dham had been arrested. It was also submitted that the trial showed no signs of commencing soon, with more than 200 witnesses cited and over 63,000 pages of documents relied upon.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Quashes MPCB Circular, Restores Green Gene's Right to Collect Hazardous
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, stressing the gravity of the offence and alleging attempts to influence witnesses and dissipate attached properties. The agency argued that long incarceration alone could not override the stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Court’s Observations
The Bench, speaking through Justice Alok Aradhe, made it clear that seriousness of allegations cannot eclipse fundamental rights.
“The right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not dependent on the nature of the offence,” the court observed, adding that prolonged pre-trial detention risks turning custody into punishment.
The judges noted that the maximum punishment under the PMLA in this case was seven years, while Dham had already spent over 16 months in jail. Importantly, the court recorded that the Enforcement Directorate itself had informed the Special Court that investigation against the appellant was complete.
Read also:- Gujarat High Court Seeks Policy Records to Verify Supreme Court Compliance on Prisoner Remission
On allegations of witness influence, the Bench remarked that the claim “does not inspire confidence,” especially since the alleged witness was formally added long after Dham had been taken into custody.
A crucial factor weighed by the court was delay caused by the prosecution. Proceedings before the trial court remained stalled for nearly eight months due to a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate itself, which was later withdrawn.
“The delay in the trial is attributable to the respondent, not the appellant,” the Bench said, rejecting the argument that the accused was responsible for slow progress.
The Decision
Concluding that continued incarceration violated constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court quashed the Delhi High Court’s order denying bail.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Career of MP Judge, Sets Aside Removal Over Bail Orders After 27 Years
Arvind Dham was directed to be released on bail in both money laundering cases, subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court. These include surrendering his passport, remaining in India without permission, and providing a contact number to the Enforcement Directorate.
With this, the appeal was allowed, restoring Dham’s liberty while the trial remains pending.
Case Title: Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal – Bail under PMLA
Decision Date: 6 January 2026
