Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham, Citing Right to Liberty and Speedy Trial Prolonged Pretrial Detention Deemed Violative of Article 21; Bail Conditions Set for Economic Offence Case
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Arvind Dham, the former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., who has been embroiled in an economic offence case involving alleged fraud and money laundering. The court's decision pivots on the principle of the right to liberty and a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Mr. Dham, who was arrested in July 2024, has been in custody for approximately 16 months, without the trial making reasonable progress. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 6, 2026, quashed the Delhi High Court's order that denied bail to Mr. Dham, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial commencement violates constitutional rights.
The appellant was accused of orchestrating a scheme involving the diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, causing significant losses to public sector banks. Despite serious allegations, the court underscored that not all economic offences could be treated homogeneously to warrant blanket denial of bail.
The apex court noted that the evidence in the case is primarily documentary and already in the custody of the prosecution. It highlighted that the delay in trial was partly due to procedural challenges, including an eight-month deferment caused by an appeal from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) itself, which was later withdrawn.
In its decision, the court also addressed the credibility of allegations against Mr. Dham regarding witness tampering, finding them "incredulous and untenable," given the timeline of events and Mr. Dham's custody status.
The Supreme Court's ruling reflects a broader judicial stance that long periods of pretrial detention should not translate into punishment, especially when trials are delayed. The court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, irrespective of the crime's nature, and statutory restrictions should not lead to indefinite detention.
The court set conditions for Mr. Dham's bail, including surrendering his passport and remaining in contact with enforcement officers. While granting bail, the court emphasized that Mr. Dham is neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence.
This judgment is expected to have wider implications for similar economic offence cases, reinforcing the need for timely trials and adherence to constitutional rights.
Bottom Line:
Right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. Prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant bail, particularly when the trial is unlikely to commence within a reasonable time, and where evidence is primarily documentary and already in custody of the prosecution.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 45, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833571
