Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case

“Pretrial Detention Cannot Become Punishment Merely Because the Alleged Crime Is Serious”, On January 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial ruling in Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail to the former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd., who had remained in custody for over 16 months without commencement of trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe held that the continued incarceration of the appellant amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and directed his release on regular bail.

The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional guarantee to liberty, especially in cases involving economic offences where the trial remains stagnant despite completion of investigation.

“Article 21 Applies Irrespective of the Nature of Crime”: SC Rejects Blanket Denial of Bail for Economic Offences

The central thrust of the Court’s reasoning was that “the right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.” The Court observed that pretrial detention cannot be allowed to morph into punishment merely on the ground of gravity of allegations, especially when the trial shows no signs of commencing.

The appellant, Arvind Dham, had been arrested on July 9, 2024, in connection with two ECIRs filed by the Directorate of Enforcement alleging laundering of ₹673.35 crores—comprising ₹385.35 crores in a complaint by IDBI Bank and ₹289 crores by Bank of Maharashtra—relating to the affairs of the Amtek Group. The ED’s case was that Dham was the “ultimate beneficiary” of a well-orchestrated scheme of siphoning public funds through layered entities, thereby causing massive loss to public sector banks.

However, as the Court pointed out, while 28 individuals were arrayed as accused in the supplementary complaint dated August 2, 2025, only Arvind Dham had been arrested and remained in custody, despite the investigation being declared complete with respect to him as early as August 20, 2025.

“No Likelihood of Trial Commencing in Foreseeable Future”: Supreme Court Faults ED for Eight-Month Delay

The Court did not merely stop at recording the fact of delay—it attributed the delay directly to the prosecution agency. Referring to a High Court proceeding initiated by the ED itself, the Bench noted that:

“The delay in the trial is thus attributable only to the respondent, not the appellant.”

The Special Judge had issued notice to proposed accused persons on September 7, 2024, but the ED challenged that order before the High Court, which led to an eight-month stay on the trial proceedings. That stay was vacated only on May 23, 2025, when the ED voluntarily withdrew its petition. The apex court found that this procedural choice on the part of the ED had directly resulted in a prolonged denial of liberty to the appellant.

It further noted that no cognizance has yet been taken, the matter remains at the stage of document scrutiny, and 210 prosecution witnesses are listed, making any near-future commencement of trial “wholly unlikely.”

“Economic Offences Are Not a Homogeneous Class to Deny Bail Blindly”: SC Relies on Recent Bail Precedents

Quoting its own recent jurisprudence, including V. Senthil Balaji, Padam Chand Jain, P. Chidambaram, Manish Sisodia, and Satender Kumar Antil, the Court categorically held:

“It is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all economic offences into one group and deny bail on that basis.”

The judgment reaffirmed that mere classification as an economic offence does not override the right to bail where the investigation is complete, the evidence is primarily documentary, and there is little likelihood of tampering or flight risk. Importantly, the Bench stressed that:

“If the State or prosecuting agency has no wherewithal to protect the right to speedy trial, then they cannot oppose bail merely by citing the seriousness of the offence.”

Allegations of Witness Tampering Found “Wholly Incredulous”

The ED had alleged that Dham attempted to influence a key witness, Ms. Anuradha Kapur. However, the Court decisively rejected this claim as lacking credibility:

“The allegation does not inspire confidence, particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant has been in custody prior to the concerned witness being formally arrayed as a witness.”

It observed that Dham was arrested on July 9, 2024, and Ms. Kapur was named as a prosecution witness only in the supplementary complaint filed on August 2, 2025. The timeline rendered any such accusation “wholly incredulous.”

Allegations of Property Dissipation Unfounded; No Evidentiary Link to Accused

The Court also dismissed ED’s assertions regarding dissipation of proceeds of crime, finding that the properties in question—sold on December 24, 2024, and February 17, 2025—were linked to M/s Marichika Properties, a company with no proven connection to Dham.

The judgment clarified that:

“There is no evidence that the appellant was signatory to any sale document. The allegation... is therefore untenable at this stage.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement marks a pivotal moment in bail jurisprudence under the PMLA, reaffirming that Article 21 cannot be suspended merely because the offence is economic in nature. The ruling underscores that liberty cannot be held hostage to administrative delays or prosecutorial inertia, especially when the accused has cooperated and the evidence is largely documentary.

In quashing the Delhi High Court’s rejection of bail, the apex court not only restored the appellant’s liberty but also reinforced the constitutional principle that pretrial detention must remain the exception, not the rule—even in high-profile financial crime cases.

The appellant was directed to surrender his passport, remain in India, and be available on call to the Enforcement Directorate. The specific bail conditions are to be fixed by the Special Court.

Date of Decision: January 6, 2026