The Supreme Court granted bail to Arvind Dham, the promoter of the Amtek Group, in a money laundering case connected to alleged bank fraud involving approximately Rs. 27,000 crores. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed Dham’s plea, which challenged the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant him regular bail. The matter stems from two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) registered by the Enforcement Directorate based on First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in December 2022, following complaints by the Bank of Maharashtra and IDBI Bank alleging diversion and misuse of loan funds by various companies within the Amtek Group.
The offenses alleged in the FIRs included criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code as well as provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are scheduled offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. According to the Enforcement Directorate, the investigation uncovered significant financial mismanagement and diversion of public funds by Amtek Group companies such as Amtek Auto Ltd., ACIL Ltd., Metalyst Forging Ltd., Castex Technologies Ltd., and ARGL Ltd., which had taken loans exceeding Rs. 26,000 crores from a consortium of public sector banks including State Bank of India, IDBI Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, and Karur Vysya Bank. These accounts later became non‑performing assets.
The Directorate’s case was built on forensic and transaction audits conducted during insolvency proceedings and examination of the companies’ accounts dating back to 2012‑13, which allegedly showed systematic diversion of loan funds instead of their use for capital expansion. Investigators claimed that audits revealed an overstatement of fixed assets by more than Rs. 15,000 crores through fictitious sales and purchases, false debit notes, and inflated valuations, which were then used to secure additional credit from banks. The Enforcement Directorate further alleged that substantial portions of the loan proceeds were routed through more than 500 group and shell entities controlled by Dham and his family, with dummy directors acting on instructions, and that these funds were diverted for acquisition of land and real estate, investments in listed and unlisted companies, and transfers to related parties.
The agency maintained that the beneficial ownership of these entities was deliberately concealed through layered corporate structures, family trusts, and proxy shareholders to obscure the origin and control of the alleged proceeds of crime and to mislead lenders and regulators, and that Dham, as the group’s promoter and controlling mind, exercised control through these entities and was the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged proceeds of crime. Previously, the Supreme Court had noted prima facie diversion of public funds into land and real estate while addressing a writ petition seeking a probe into alleged bank frauds exceeding Rs. 27,000 crores involving the Amtek Group and had directed a detailed investigation.
During the course of the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate carried out searches at multiple locations in June 2024 and seized property documents, cash, and jewellery. It later issued a provisional attachment order covering assets worth over Rs. 5,100 crores, and filed a prosecution complaint in September 2024 before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act court, arraigning Dham and other accused. Dham was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in July 2024. His initial bail application was rejected by the special court in January 2025, after which he approached the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court declined bail on the grounds that the allegations related to one of the largest economic offenses in the country, with total outstanding bank dues standing at Rs. 38,760 crores, that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were not satisfied, and that the material on record indicated a risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The High Court also determined that the evidence placed by the Enforcement Directorate did not give rise to reasonable grounds to believe that Dham was not guilty of the offense, and in considering his claim of being “sick and infirm”, relied on medical reports including that of the AIIMS Medical Board to hold that his condition was stable and could be managed in custody.
After the High Court’s refusal, Dham challenged the order in the Supreme Court, which has now granted him bail. The detailed judgment explaining the reasons for this decision is awaited.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.