‘Economic offence of exceptional magnitude’: Delhi HC denies bail to Amtek group ex-director Arvind Dham

The Amtek Group had defaulted on loans exceeding Rs 25,000 crore taken from more than 15 banks. Amtek Group companies like ARG Limited, ACIL limited, Amtek Auto Limited, Metallic Forging Limited and Castex Technologies Limited, along with other group firms, were taken into insolvency, the resolution of which resulted in a massive haircut of more than 80 per cent for the banks, causing substantial loss to the financial system.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, refusing to grant Dham bail, reasoned that the twin conditions for grant of bail to accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act—that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and the accused will not commit any offence while out on bail—“are not satisfied” in his case.

“Granting bail at this juncture would risk compromising both the trial and public confidence in the justice system. The seriousness of the charge, the weight of the evidence, and the statutory scheme all point in one direction. The applicant has not shown circumstances exceptional enough to justify departure from that path. Continued custody is thus warranted,” the court recorded.

Justice Dudeja further stated, “The principle that economic offences warrant stringent treatment in bail matters is not absolute, however, in cases involving large-scale diversion of public funds the gravity of the offences assumes overriding significance. Given the serious repercussions for the economy and the banking sector, such offences undermine public confidence and harm depositors and creditors.”

“Granting bail too liberally in such matters risks sending a counterproductive signal…the allegations….pertain to an economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct causing grave loss to public sector banks…,” he added.

Observing that the ED’s case is founded not on mere suspicion but on extensive documentary evidence and forensic audits which prima facie implicates Dham, the court further recorded, “With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, economic offences such as money laundering have emerged as a serious threat to the financial system of the country. These offences pose a significant challenge for investigating agencies, given the complex and intricate nature of the transactions and the involvement of multiple actors. A meticulous and thorough investigation is essential to ensure that innocent persons are not wrongfully implicated and that the actual offenders are brought to justice.”

Highlighting that the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against leniency in cases involving massive public fund defalcation, and that the proceeds of crime in this case exceeds the recovery ensured through insolvency proceedings, the court underlined that Dham’s proposed resolution plan, “envisaging payment of only ₹35 crores against dues of over thousands of crores, reflects a near-total haircut to creditors. This underscores the irreparable nature of the alleged loss to the public exchequer. In such circumstances, premature release risks undermining efforts to secure accountability.”