Delhi HC Refuses Bail to 64 Years Old Senior Citizen in PMLA Case, Holds Health Grounds Alone Cannot Justify Release [Read Order]
The Delhi High Court refused bail to 64-year-old Arvind Dham in a Rs. 26,000 crore PMLA case, observing that health grounds alone cannot justify release.
Delhi HC - Refuses Bail - 64 Years Old Senior Citizen PMLA - Case - taxscan
Delhi HC - Refuses Bail - 64 Years Old Senior Citizen PMLA - Case - taxscan
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that health grounds alone cannot justify bail in serious money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Arvind Dham, the petitioner, a 64-year-old senior citizen and former promoter of the Amtek Group of Companies, filed an application seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 45 of the PMLA.
The case arose out of ECIRs registered by the Enforcement Directorate based on large-scale allegations of diversion of public funds exceeding Rs. 26,000 crores through Amtek Auto Ltd. and its group companies, which had caused huge losses to public sector banks.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had already spent about one year in custody and that no progress had been made in the trial of the predicate offences. They further argued that the petitioner suffered from several serious health issues, including coronary artery disease and progressive vision impairment, which could not be properly managed in jail.
The counsel pointed out that the petitioner had complied with conditions when interim bail was granted earlier and that prolonged custody without trial violated his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Enforcement Directorate’s counsel argued that the petitioner was the ultimate beneficiary and mastermind of one of the country’s largest bank frauds and that material collected showed deliberate diversion of loan funds through hundreds of shell entities.
They argued that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA and that his conduct, including alleged attempts to alienate attached properties and instructing witnesses not to cooperate, created a serious risk of interference with the trial.
They also argued that his medical condition was not life-threatening and could be managed in custody, as confirmed by medical reports.
The single-judge bench comprising Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and large-scale diversion of public funds must be treated with greater seriousness than ordinary offences.
The court explained that the petitioner’s age and health were concerning but medical care could be provided in custody and illness by itself was not enough to override the gravity of the charges.
The court further pointed out that under Section 45 of the PMLA, bail could not be granted unless there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty, which was not satisfied on the available record.
The court held that the petitioner had not shown any exceptional circumstances warranting bail. Given the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the serious impact on the banking system, and the stage of proceedings, the application for bail was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
