The Supreme Court allowed a criminal appeal against the High Court's order rejecting regular bail to the appellant in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) -- The appellant, a former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd., was arrested on 09.07.2024 and had been in custody for about 16 months and 20 days -- The Court found that the investigation against him was complete, and trial had not commenced due to delays attributable to the prosecution -- Citing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without trial violated his fundamental rights -- The Court granted bail with conditions, emphasizing that economic offences do not warrant automatic bail denial -- The judgment references multiple precedents on bail in PMLA cases and the importance of liberty in criminal jurisprudence
Criminal Law-- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023-- Section 483-- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA)-- Section 45-- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 120B, 420, 406 and 468-- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d)-- Regular bail-- Appellant/accused was a former promoter and non executive director of company-- Allegation of fraud of Rs 385.35 crores & Rs 289 crores-- Allegation that appellant was beneficiary -- Application for bail filed under PMLA Act-- Rejection of application by high court-- Appeal filed before Supreme court for regular bail-- Siphoning of public funds-- 208 prosecution witnesses cited-- Appellant is aged 64 years old-- No likelihood of commencement of trial in near future-- Delay in trial of approximately eight months is attributable to the respondents-- Economic offences cannot be classified as separate class on its own for determining of grant of bail-- Gravity of offence required to be considered while dealing with prayer for regular bail-- Terms of sentence-- Aspect of right of speedy trial required to be considered in favour accused-- Prolonged incarceration period- Maximum sentence is 7 years-- appellant is in custody since last 16 months and 20 days- Long list of witnesses-- Bail granted-- Appeal allowed
Para-- 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties, surrender of passport, and no interference with witnesses or evidence
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 13
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025)
Date of Decision: 2026-01-06
Case Title: Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) considering prolonged incarceration and delay in trial
Before Judge: SANJAY KUMAR J. , ALOK ARADHE J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 12
Appellant: Arvind Dham
Respondent: Directorate of Enforcement
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against rejection of regular bail in a money laundering case
Remedy Sought: Appellant sought grant of regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Filing Reason: Appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024 and had been in custody for about 16 months and 20 days without trial commencement, alleging violation of right to speedy trial
Previous Decisions: Special Judge dismissed bail application on 21.01.2025, High Court rejected bail application on 19.08.2025, interim bail was granted on medical grounds from 11.03.2025 to 01.04.2025
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) considering prolonged incarceration and delay in trial Whether the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated by the appellant's custody without trial commencement Whether economic offences form a separate class for bail denial
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant argued prolonged incarceration of about 16 months and 20 days violated right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 Appellant contended investigation was complete and only he among 28 individuals was arrested, making custody no longer required Appellant submitted delay in trial of eight months was attributable to respondent's actions in filing and withdrawing a challenge Appellant urged economic offences do not form a separate class for bail determination and he is neither a flight risk nor can tamper with evidence Respondent argued gravity of offence disentitled appellant from bail, alleging he was ultimate beneficiary of a large-scale fraud
Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged incarceration without trial commencement violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Economic offences do not form a separate class for bail denial -- Grant of bail under Section 45 of PMLA requires consideration of factors such as completion of investigation and delay attributable to prosecution -- Custody is not required if investigation is complete and accused is not a flight risk or threat to evidence
Judgment Excerpts: The Court held that the appellant's prolonged incarceration of about 16 months and 20 days, without trial commencement, violated his right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India The Court noted that the investigation qua the appellant was complete, and only he among 28 individuals was arrested, making his custody no longer required The delay in trial of approximately eight months was attributed to the respondent's actions in filing and later withdrawing a challenge, which deferred proceedings The Court rejected the argument that economic offences form a separate class for bail denial, citing settled law
Procedural History: FIRs registered on 21.12.2022 for predicate offences -- ECIRs registered on 21.03.2023 for money laundering -- Appellant arrested on 09.07.2024 -- Bail application dismissed by Special Judge on 21.01.2025 -- High Court rejected bail on 19.08.2025 -- Interim bail granted from 11.03.2025 to 01.04.2025 -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal
