# Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement

> SC judgment dated 2026-01-06. Citation: TCN-2026-SC-00087. The appellant, Arvind Dham, a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 6 Jan 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-SC-00087
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/arvind-dham-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-uiktu

## Summary

### Background

The appellant, Arvind Dham, a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was accused in FIRs registered by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra for offenses under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging fraud of INR 385.35 crores and INR 289 crores. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) subsequently registered two ECIRs under PMLA. The appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024. His application for regular bail under Section 45 of PMLA was dismissed by the Special Judge on 21.01.2025 and subsequently rejected by the High Court of Delhi on 19.08.2025, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

## Facts

The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2025, passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.

The High Court rejected the appellant's application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA').

The appellant, Arvind Dham, is a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL).

The appellant is also a non-executive Director of M/s. ACIL Ltd.

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against entities belonging to the 'Amtek Group' during 2017-2018.

FIRs were registered on 21.12.2022 at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS read with Section 45 of …

**Ratio:** Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without commencement or reasonable progress of

…

**Reasoning:** The appellant has been in custody for over 16 months and 20 days. The investigation

…

**Interpretation:** The right to speedy trial under Article 21 is a fundamental right that applies

…

**Application:** Given the appellant's prolonged custody, the concluded investigation, the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** ALOK ARAD…; SANJAY KU…
- **Appellants:** Arvind…
- **Respondents:** Amtek Auto Ltd.…; M/s. ACIL…; +2 more
- **Other parties:** Anuradha…; IDBI…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2017-2018 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against entities belonging…
- **2022-12-21 — FIRs Regi…**: FIRs were registered at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 50 — Extortionate credit transactions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-50)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/arvind-dham-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-uiktu