Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court convened to hear the plea of Arvind Dham, the former Chairman of the Amtek Group, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in July for his alleged involvement in an INR 2700 crore bank fraud case. Dham, who suffered from coronary artery disease, sought interim bail to undergo angiography. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented him, while Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of the ED.  

The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan presided over the matter.  

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Sibal argued that Dham should be permitted to undergo the medical procedure at a hospital of his choice. He contended that since the complaint had already been filed, no further investigation was necessary. However, the court observed that the medical report classified the angiography as a one-day treatment.  

In response, Senior Advocate Sibal cited precedents where courts had granted bail for four weeks to accused persons requiring similar procedures. He referred to a case involving a 57-year-old heart patient and questioned the necessity of Dham’s continued custody. He further asserted that the state could impose conditions on the bail if required, as all witnesses in the case had already been examined.  

Special Counsel Hussain opposed the plea, arguing that the court needed to determine whether the case fell under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He emphasized that even for interim bail, the conditions set by the provisio of section 45 has to be satisfied. He further pointed out that accused individuals often sought medical bail when they failed to qualify for regular bail as the threshold for bail is higher. 

Special Counsel Hussain then referred to the medical board’s report, explaining that Dham’s need for further procedure would be confirmed only after the angiography. He argued that since the procedure was a day-care treatment, interim bail was unwarranted. Instead, he suggested that the court could reconsider the matter after reviewing the test results.  

As an alternative, Special Counsel Hussain proposed that the court allow Dham’s hospital admission under security supervision, considering both the severity of the alleged offense and his health condition. 

The court then inquired whether the prosecution considered Dham a flight risk, to which Special Counsel Hussain responded that their primary concern was whether keeping him in hospital custody would create any legal prejudice against him.  

Senior Advocate Sibal, however, questioned the ED’s insistence on keeping Dham in custody. He maintained that his client had no intention of absconding and genuinely required the medical procedure.