₹2,700-Crore Bank Fraud Case: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former Amtek Chairman Arvind Dham

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, however, left it to the trial court to determine the conditions of bail.

Dham’s bail comes months after the Delhi High Court had rejected his plea for regular bail in the same matter, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of the alleged financial fraud.

The ED had arrested Dham on July 9, 2024 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a case linked to Amtek group company ACIL Ltd. Following his arrest, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi had remanded him to the custody of the investigating agency for further probe.

The money laundering investigation stems from multiple FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on complaints filed by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. The banks had accused the Amtek Group and its promoters of cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust, and diversion of loan funds, resulting in substantial financial losses to the lending institutions.

According to the ED, its investigation revealed that the Amtek Group had defaulted on loans exceeding ₹2,700 crore availed from more than 15 banks and financial institutions. The agency alleged that funds raised through bank loans were diverted through a complex web of transactions involving multiple group entities.

Several Amtek Group companies, including ARG Ltd, ACIL, Amtek Auto Ltd, Metalyst Forging, and Castex Technologies, along with other group concerns, were eventually pushed into insolvency proceedings due to mounting debt and defaults. The collapse of these companies had sent shockwaves through the banking sector, given the exposure of multiple public sector banks to the group.

The ED has maintained that the alleged acts constitute proceeds of crime under the money laundering law and that Dham, as the promoter and key decision-maker, played a central role in orchestrating the diversion of funds. The agency has relied on financial records, bank statements, and statements of witnesses to support its case.

While granting bail, the Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the allegations but noted that the question of conditions, including restrictions on travel and cooperation with the investigation, would be considered by the trial court.

The case against Dham continues to be pending before the trial court, and the ED’s investigation into the broader alleged money laundering network linked to the Amtek Group is still underway.

During the hearing before the High Court, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED had opposed Dham’s bail plea, terming the Amtek case one of the largest financial frauds in India. He submitted that Dham and his associates were still engaging in financial manipulations and were attempting to sell assets and influence witnesses.

Hossain had argued that laundering of funds was still underway, and if Dham were released on bail, he would “systematically siphon off” concealed proceeds of crime. He stressed that granting bail in such circumstances would dilute the deterrent effect in cases involving large-scale economic offences.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Dham, had countered these submissions by invoking the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He argued that prolonged incarceration without any meaningful progress in trial proceedings amounted to a violation of Dham’s fundamental rights.

On May 30, 2025, the Court had refused him interim bail, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the magnitude of the alleged proceeds of crime made interim relief untenable. At that time too, the ED had stressed that the alleged laundering activities ran into several thousand crores and that releasing Dham would seriously undermine the ongoing investigation. The origins of the case lie in complaints filed in December 2022 by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra against certain Amtek Group companies.