Read Time: 06 minutes
In the earlier hearing, the bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan had granted medical bail since he was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and required interim bail for an angiography. The case was now overseen by the bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja.
Arvind Dham, on Tuesday, before the Delhi High Court held that “every time you want someone in jail, you go to the hospital and threaten the doctors to seek discharge”. These observations were made in an application filed by Arvind Dham, the former Chairman of the Amtek Group, who was arrested by the ED in July for his alleged involvement in an INR 2700 crore bank fraud case.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vikas Pahwa, representing Dham, raised concerns over the ED’s visit to the hospitals where he was admitted.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the necessity of the ED’s visit, stating that officials had taken all of Dham’s medical records. He further argued that such actions undermined the legal process, asking, “Is this the way we are going to conduct prosecution?”. Senior Advocate Sibal also highlighted that there was no official complaint on record and that Dham had already been in custody for nine months.
Senior Advocate Sibal stated that he had been admitted to a second hospital’s Critical Care Unit (CCU), where doctors recommended further treatment, including an angiography. Medical reports allegedly indicated a 70% blockage, justifying his continued hospitalization. Despite this, the ED had visited the hospital, leading to Dham’s discharge within two hours.
“What is ED's interest in visiting the hospitals?” Senior Advocate Sibal stated.
The court noted that, according to hospital records, Dham had been in a stable condition, which was the reason for his discharge. The bench referred to reports from Manipal Hospital, which suggested that no further inquiry was needed at the time of his discharge. However, Dham was later admitted to Apollo Hospital, where doctors recommended Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery (CTVS), but he was discharged within two hours of that assessment.
Senior Advocate Sibal stated, “I went to the hospital because I wanted treatment. Am I not allowed to go to the hospital to seek treatment?”.
Advocates for the State questioned why Dham had not returned to Manipal Hospital for further treatment. They argued that this indicated a misuse of his medical bail. The State contended that their intent in visiting the hospital was merely to verify medical records and that they were being unfairly accused of influencing Dham’s discharge.
The ED held, “they (Accused) only place reports which they think will favour them in extending this medical bail”.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Ankur Chawla, Arshdeep Singh Khurna, Sumer Singh Boparai, Hemant Shah, Shambhu Kumar Thakur, Sirhaan Seth, Ayush Puri, Rishabh Basra and Shobh Nath MauryaFor ED: Special Counsels Zoheb Hossain and Manish Jain with Standing Counsels Vivek Gurnani and Kartik Sabharwal with Advocates Pranjal Tripathi and Bhushita SharmaCase Title: Arvind Dham v ED (BAIL APPLN.-544/2025)
Please Login or Register
