Delhi High Court: The present application was filed by Arvind Dham, promoter of the Amtek Group under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR dated 21-12-2022 and 29-12-2022 under Sections 120-B/420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 7(c), Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘1988 Act’). Additionally, SFIO investigations disclosed commission of offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., observed that Arvind Dham was allegedly involved in diversion and laundering of multi crores and allegations against him pertained to economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct causing grave loss to public sector banks. While Arvind Dham might be ailing, adequate medical care could be provided in custody under judicial supervision. The Court stated that the trial was at a nascent stage, and the statutory conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, therefore, the application was dismissed as there was no ground for bail.
Background
The present proceedings arose out of an ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) pursuant to large-scale allegations of financial mismanagement, fraud, and money laundering within the Amtek Group of companies, including Amtek Auto Ltd., ACIL Ltd., and allied entities. The investigation started after a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court highlighting bank frauds exceeding Rs 12,000 crores, alongside multiple FIRs alleging diversion of funds and creation of shell entities to siphon public money, lodged by the CBI and other agencies.
The investigation revealed that Arvind Dham, as the promoter of the Amtek Group including its flagship companies Amtek Auto Ltd., ACIL Ltd., Metalyst Forging Ltd., Castex Technologies Ltd., and ARGL Ltd. was the chief architect behind the diversion of approximately Rs 26,956 crores in bank loans through a complex network of over 500 group and shell entities, where he and his family were the ultimate beneficial owners of numerous entities used for layering and concealment of proceeds of crime. Serving as Managing Director or Director, Arvind Dham was directly involved in all strategic and operational decisions, with key managerial staff confirming his central leadership role.
He systematically manipulated financial records by overstating fixed assets, inflating profits, and understating expenses using fictitious transactions, misclassified expenses, and false debit notes, thereby misleading lenders and investors. Statutory auditors, under Section 50 of the PMLA, admitted to auditing falsified accounts under instructions from his finance team.He allegedly diverted loan funds to acquire real estate and made undisclosed investments, transferred prime assets to associates at undervalued prices, and disguised properties to conceal ownership. He also concealed over Rs 5,000 crores worth of assets during personal insolvency proceedings and alienated properties during the investigation to frustrate enforcement actions. The ED portrays Arvind Dham as the principal beneficiary of a massive, deliberate, and sustained corporate fraud and money laundering scheme that deceived creditors and compromised the financial system.
Case Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the allegations in the present case pertained to one of the largest economic offences investigated in the country, involving an alleged diversion and laundering of over Rs 26,000 crores. The Court after noting that Arvind Dham invoked the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA on the ground of being a “sick and infirm” person, opined that being “sick and infirm” was not an automatic passport to bail in serious economic offences. A perusal of order dated 1-4-2025 revealed that Arvind Dham was diagnosed with non-critical coronary artery disease (CAD), a stable and non-obstructive condition as confirmed by discharge summaries from two hospitals and a report by the AIIMS Medical Board. The medical opinion stated that the petitioner required an elective Coronary Angiography (CAG), which was a day-care procedure not necessitating overnight hospitalization, which could be adequately managed in judicial custody. Therefore, Arvind Dham’s health condition, did not justify extension of interim bail.
The Court noted that Arvind Dham’s active role in manipulation of accounts, overstatement of fixed assets, and routing of funds through more than 500 entities, were not isolated or spontaneous acts but appeared to be part of a deliberate and sustained criminal design over the years.
Further, Arvind Dham’s position as the central figure in the alleged fraud enhanced the risk and the Court could not ignore the likelihood of interference with the investigation and trial if bail was granted.
The Court observed that the principle that economic offences should be treated stringently in bail matters was not absolute, however, in cases involving large-scale diversion of public funds demand a heightened level of scrutiny due to their grave impact on the economy, banking sector, and public confidence and granting bail too liberally in such cases migh send a counterproductive signal.
The Courted noted that the alleged proceeds of crime far exceeded the recoveries made under insolvency proceedings, and Arvind Dham’s proposed resolution plan, offering only Rs 35 crores against liabilities over thousands of crores, reflected a near-total haircut to creditors, which underscored the irreparable nature of alleged loss to the public exchequer.
The Court observed that with advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, economic offences such as money laundering had emerged as a serious threat to the financial system of the country. A meticulous and thorough investigation was essential to ensure that innocent persons were not wrongfully implicated and that the actual offenders weae brought to justice.
Further, the Court stated that the argument that trial delay justified bail could not be made applicable in the present case as the complexity of the case, the multiplicity of transactions, and the layered corporate structures necessarily, entailed a protracted trial. Arvind Dham’s continued custody was not an arbitrary deprivation of liberty but a necessary measure to preserve the integrity of the process. The ED’s case was founded on extensive documentary evidence, forensic audits, and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which prima facie implicated him in the alleged money laundering scheme.
The Court observed that while it was conscious of its duty to balance individual liberty with the larger societal interest, however in serious economic offences, latter takes precedence. The Court opined that granting bail at this stage would risk undermining the trial process and public confidence in the justice system. The seriousness of the charges, the weight of the evidence, and the statutory scheme all point in one direction and Arvind Dham failed to show any circumstances exceptional enough to justify departure from that path.
The Court thus held that the allegations against Arvind Dham pertained to an economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct causing grave loss to public sector banks. Such offences erode the fabric of economic governance and public trust and could not be taken lightly. While Arvind Dham might be ailing, adequate medical care could be provided in custody under judicial supervision. Further, since the trial was at a nascent stage, and the statutory conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, the Court found no ground to grant bail and dismissed the application.
[Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate, Bail Appln. 544 of 2025, decided on 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Sumer Singh Boparai, Shambhu K. Thakur, Ayush Puri, Abhihsek Singh, Sirhaan Seth, Sidhant Saraswat, Surya Pratap Singh, Abhilash Kumar Pathak, Talib Mustafa, Khanav Madnani, Sanskriti S. Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel and Manish Jain, Special Counsel with Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Rakesh Jourawal, Advocates.
