Right to Speedy Trial Not Overridden by Nature of Offence: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Amtek Auto’s Arvind Dham

The Supreme Court, on January 6, 2026, held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is not overridden by the nature of the offence, while granting bail to Arvind Dham, former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd, in money laundering cases.

Dham, an accused in a bank fraud case involving nearly Rs 38,000 crore, was arrested on June 19, 2024. He had been in custody for about 16 months and 20 days.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated August 19, 2025, which had rejected his bail plea.

The bench observed that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without the commencement or reasonable progress of trial cannot be justified, as it effectively converts pre-trial detention into punishment. It said that economic offences vary in nature and facts and cannot be treated as a single category, warranting a blanket denial of bail.

As per the case record, FIRs were registered on December 21, 2022, on complaints by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406 and 468 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Dham was named as an accused along with 27 others. The FIRs alleged fraud of Rs 385.35 crore and Rs 289 crore, respectively.

Based on these FIRs, the Enforcement Directorate registered two ECIRs on March 21, 2023, alleging laundering of proceeds of crime. Separately, on a writ petition alleging that the Amtek Group had diverted and siphoned bank loans amounting to Rs 33,400 crore, the Supreme Court on February 27, 2024 directed the CBI and the SFIO to carry out an exhaustive investigation.

Before the apex court, Dham’s counsel argued that his continued incarceration violated his right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21, especially as there was no likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future.

The ED opposed the bail plea, contending that Dham was an influential person and had instructed his cousin, Anuradha Kapur, described as a dummy director in the group companies, not to cooperate with the investigation. It was argued that long incarceration alone could not be a ground for bail, given the seriousness of the offence and allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

The bench, however, said that while considering bail, courts must balance the object of the special law, the gravity of the offence, surrounding circumstances and the likely sentence. It reiterated that all economic offences cannot be placed in one category and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022).

Court further observed that if the State or prosecuting agency is unable to ensure a speedy trial, it cannot oppose bail merely on the ground that the offence is serious. Emphasising that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime, the bench relied on earlier decisions in the Manish Sisodia and V Senthil Balaji cases.

On the facts of the case, the court noted that Dham had joined the investigation even before his arrest and had cooperated on multiple occasions. Out of 28 accused persons, only Dham had been arrested. The maximum punishment he faced was seven years’ imprisonment.

The bench also noted that in several cases, the Supreme Court has granted bail where undertrials had been incarcerated for periods ranging from three to 17 months. In the present case, no cognisance had yet been taken on the prosecution complaint, and the matter was still at the stage of scrutiny of documents. With 210 witnesses to be examined, the court found no likelihood of the trial beginning anytime soon.

It also pointed out that there was no material on record showing progress on the ED’s application seeking day-to-day hearing. Since the evidence was largely documentary and already in the custody of the prosecution, the continued incarceration of the appellant violated his right to a speedy trial.

Court rejected as “wholly incredulous” the allegation that Dham had influenced witness Anuradha Kapur, noting that she was listed as a witness only on August 2, 2025, whereas Dham had been in custody since July 9, 2024. It further held that the delay in the trial was attributable to the ED and not to the appellant, and found the allegation regarding dissipation of proceeds of crime untenable, as Dham was not a signatory to the sale documents.

Accordingly, court ordered that Arvind Dham be released on bail during the pendency of the trial arising out of the two PMLA complaints. It directed him to furnish a mobile number to remain accessible to the ED, surrender his passport, and not leave India without prior permission of the trial court.

Case Title: Arvind Dham Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Order Date: January 6, 2026

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe