The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday granted bail to former Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham in a high-profile money laundering case linked to a multi-crore bank fraud, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21, even in cases involving serious economic offences.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Delhi High Court’s August 2025 order, which had denied bail to Dham on the grounds that releasing him could jeopardize the trial, erode public confidence in the justice system, and undermine economic governance.

Supreme Court’s Observations on Bail in Economic Offences

The court stressed that economic offences cannot be treated as a homogeneous class warranting blanket denial of bail. “All economic offences cannot be classified into one group… they may differ from one case to another,” the bench observed. While acknowledging the gravity of the offence is a factor in bail consideration, the Supreme Court underscored that seriousness alone cannot override the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The bench further stated that if the prosecuting agency or State is unable to ensure a timely trial, it cannot oppose bail solely on the seriousness of the offence. Citing precedents, the court noted that prolonged pre-trial incarceration effectively converts detention into punishment, which is impermissible under Article 21.

Case Background and Investigation Status

Dham had been in custody for about 16 months and 20 days at the time of the hearing. The maximum sentence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is seven years, and the Supreme Court referenced prior cases where bail had been granted to individuals detained for periods ranging from three to 17 months.

The court highlighted that the investigation against Dham had concluded, documentary evidence had already been seized, and the trial was unlikely to commence in the near future. Of the 28 individuals named in the case, Dham was the only person arrested, and he had cooperated with the investigation even before his arrest, attending multiple sessions with the probe agency in June and July 2024.

The bench observed that the prosecution had cited 210 witnesses, but there had been no meaningful progress in the trial. Most evidence was documentary and already in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), making continued incarceration unjustifiable.

Supreme Court Directives

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment dated August 19, 2025, and directed that Dham be released on bail during the pendency of trial in the two ECIRs registered against him. The trial court will determine the terms and conditions of bail, which include:

• Providing a mobile number to the ED to ascertain his whereabouts.
• Surrendering his passport.
• Not leaving the country without prior permission from the trial court.

The Alleged Fraud and Money Laundering

The proceedings stem from a 2022 FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following complaints from IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. The banks accused Amtek Group companies of defaulting on massive loans through fraudulent means, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. Acting on Supreme Court directions dated February 27, 2024, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a case under the PMLA in 2024.

According to the ED, Dham was the ultimate beneficial owner of the alleged fraud, executed through a complex web of financial manipulations:

• Overstating assets and profits by over ₹15,000 crore.
• Creating fictitious sales and purchases.
• Floating more than 500 shell companies.
• Installing dummy directors to siphon off public funds.

Dham was arrested by the ED in July 2024, following the probe into the alleged multi-crore bank fraud.

Significance of the Verdict

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that speedy trial is a fundamental right, even for high-profile economic offenders. The ruling sends a clear signal that:

• Economic crimes, however serious, cannot automatically justify prolonged pre-trial detention.
• Judicial oversight is critical to prevent pre-trial incarceration from becoming punitive.
• Cooperation with investigative agencies and the nature of evidence (documentary vs. testimonial) are relevant factors in bail considerations.

Legal experts noted that this judgment could influence bail decisions in other high-value economic offences, reinforcing that constitutional protections cannot be compromised, regardless of the scale of alleged financial wrongdoing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has paved the way for Dham’s release during trial, balancing the severity of alleged offences with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. While the trial against Dham and others in the Amtek Group PMLA case will continue, the ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that justice is not delayed to the point of becoming unjust.

The matter now returns to the trial court, which will enforce the bail conditions while proceedings continue against Dham and other individuals named in the case, marking a critical development in one of India’s largest ongoing economic fraud investigations.