E-Paper
Delhi HC refuses to grant bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham
The court said the allegations against the applicant pertain to an economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct
The Delhi high court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham in a money laundering case stemming from an alleged ₹27,000-crore bank fraud.
A bench of justice Ravinder Dudeja, in his 29-page verdict, said that releasing him on bail would risk compromising the trial, public’s confidence in the justice system and eroding the fabric of economic governance.
The court noted that the allegations involved the commission of serious economic offences that had resulted in significant losses to public sector banks and could not be treated lightly.
The money laundering case had stemmed from an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022, following complaints from IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, alleging that Amtek Group companies had defaulted on substantial bank loans through fraudulent schemes involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s probe began on the directions of the Supreme Court on February 27, 2024.
The ED, in its case registered last year, had alleged that Dham was the ultimate beneficial owner of the fraud, which was executed through the manipulation of financial records, overstating assets and profits by over ₹15,000 crores, creating fictitious sales and purchases, floating more than 500 shell companies, and installing dummy directors. He was arrested by the ED in July last year.
Dham, in his petition before the high court, said he was a senior citizen aged 64 years, already been in jail for more than a year and could claim the benefit of “sick and infirm” under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Section 45 of PMLA requires the court to be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions generally make it challenging for an accused in a money laundering case to secure bail. However, it contains an exception which entitles “sick and infirm” persons to be released on bail.
Dham, represented by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, asserted that the investigation qua him stood completed and there was no likelihood for the trial to commence in future since the CBI probe was not complete.
On the contrary, the ED represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain, along with panel counsel Vivek Gurnani, asserted that the scale and method of the alleged fraud disentitled him from seeking exemption for bail, since he was accused of committing a serious economic offence involving defalcation of public money.
Hossain asserted that Dham was the controlling mind of the Amtek Group, orchestrated a complex scheme of siphoning public funds through hundreds of shell entities and falsified financial reporting.
Rejecting the bail, “Given the serious repercussions for the economy and the banking sector, such offences undermine public confidence and harm depositors and creditors. Granting bail too liberally in such matters risks sending a counterproductive signal,” the court noted.
It added, “Court finds that the allegations against the applicant pertain 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 cannot be taken lightly.”
In its ruling, the court shot down Pahwa’s contention that his client could be released on bail on the ground of being “sick and infirm”, saying that the same was not an automatic passport to bail in serious economic offences. “The applicant’s medical condition, though concerning, can be managed in custody, where prison authorities are obligated to provide adequate treatment, including referral to specialised hospitals if required,” the court maintained.
