The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham in a high-profile money laundering case linked to an alleged ₹27,000-crore bank fraud, setting aside a Delhi High Court order that had earlier denied him relief. The decision marks a significant development in one of India’s largest alleged corporate fraud cases involving public sector banks and complex financial transactions.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe allowed Dham’s appeal and overturned the August 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had refused to grant him bail on the ground that his release could jeopardise the trial and undermine public confidence in the justice system. The apex court’s order came after considering Dham’s prolonged incarceration, his age and medical condition, and the stage of the investigation.

Delhi High Court’s Earlier Refusal

In its earlier order denying bail, the Delhi High Court had underscored the seriousness of the allegations against Dham. It observed that the case involved grave economic offences causing massive losses to public sector banks and the financial system at large. The high court had cautioned that granting bail in such cases risked weakening the fabric of economic governance and could send a wrong signal to society.

The high court also rejected Dham’s argument that he should be granted bail on medical grounds. It held that being “sick and infirm” was not a blanket passport to bail in cases involving serious economic crimes. While acknowledging that Dham’s medical condition was a matter of concern, the court had concluded that his health issues could be adequately managed while he remained in judicial custody.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. While the detailed reasoning of the apex court is awaited, the bench set aside the high court’s order and granted bail, indicating that the balance of factors warranted Dham’s release at this stage. The court took note of the fact that Dham had already spent over a year in custody and that the investigation against him had substantially progressed.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not amount to a clean chit or an expression on the merits of the allegations. Instead, it reflects the court’s assessment that continued incarceration was not justified pending trial, particularly given the circumstances highlighted by the defence.

Background of the Case

The money laundering proceedings against Arvind Dham have their roots in a 2022 case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on complaints filed by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. The banks accused Amtek Group companies of defaulting on loans amounting to nearly ₹27,000 crore by adopting fraudulent means, including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and manipulation of financial records.

According to the CBI, the Amtek Group allegedly secured loans from a consortium of banks by presenting inflated financial statements and misrepresenting the health of its businesses. When the loans turned into non-performing assets, the banks initiated complaints that eventually led to criminal investigations.

On the directions of the Supreme Court in February 2024, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) stepped in and registered a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED launched a detailed probe into the financial dealings of the Amtek Group and its promoters, focusing on the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime generated through bank fraud.

ED’s Allegations Against Dham

The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that Arvind Dham was the ultimate beneficial owner and the “controlling mind” behind the alleged fraud. According to the agency, the scam was executed through systematic and large-scale manipulation of financial records over several years.

The ED has claimed that assets and profits of Amtek Group companies were overstated by more than ₹15,000 crore to project a false picture of financial stability. It has further alleged that fictitious sales and purchases were created to inflate turnover, and that over 500 shell companies were floated to divert and siphon off public funds.

The agency has also accused the group of installing dummy directors and routing money through complex layers of transactions to conceal the origin and ownership of the alleged proceeds of crime. Based on these allegations, the ED arrested Dham in July 2025, following which he was remanded to custody.

Dham’s Bail Arguments

Seeking bail, Dham contended that he was a 64-year-old senior citizen suffering from multiple health ailments and had already spent more than a year in jail. He argued that his case fell within the “sick and infirm” exception provided under Section 45 of the PMLA, which relaxes the otherwise stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.

Dham also submitted that the ED’s investigation against him had been completed and that his continued custody was no longer necessary. He pointed out that the trial was unlikely to begin in the near future, as the underlying CBI investigation into the predicate offences was still ongoing and involved voluminous records and numerous accused.

The defence further argued that there was no risk of Dham absconding or tampering with evidence, particularly since the documentary evidence had already been seized and was in the custody of the investigating agencies.

ED’s Opposition to Bail

The Enforcement Directorate strongly opposed Dham’s bail plea, both before the high court and the Supreme Court. The agency argued that the sheer magnitude and complexity of the alleged fraud disentitled him from any discretionary relief.

The ED emphasised that Section 45 of the PMLA imposes “twin conditions” for the grant of bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. According to the agency, Dham failed to meet these stringent statutory requirements.

The ED also maintained that the “sick and infirm” exception under Section 45 is not automatic and must be applied cautiously, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences. It reiterated its claim that Dham had played a central role in orchestrating the alleged fraud and that granting him bail could adversely impact the prosecution.

Legal Significance

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Dham underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain in economic offence cases between the gravity of allegations and the fundamental rights of the accused. While courts have consistently recognised that economic crimes are serious and have far-reaching consequences, they have also held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified solely on the basis of the severity of charges.

The ruling is likely to be closely examined in future cases involving bail under the PMLA, particularly those invoking the “sick and infirm” exception. It also highlights the apex court’s willingness to intervene where it finds that continued custody may not be proportionate or necessary at a particular stage of the proceedings.

As the trial in the Amtek bank fraud case is yet to commence, the focus will now shift to how swiftly the prosecution moves forward with evidence and whether the allegations against Dham can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For now, the Supreme Court’s order has given the former industrialist temporary relief, even as the legal battle over one of India’s biggest alleged banking frauds continues.