SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 14

SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
Arvind Dham – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Adv. Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Adv. Ms. Sanjivani Pattajoshi, Adv. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. . Shambhu K. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Basra, Adv. Mr. Shobh Nath Maurya, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswani, Adv. Mr. Aryansh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh, Adv. Ms. Agrimala Singh, Adv. Mr. Satyarth Singh, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Shaury Sarin, Adv. Ms. Aditi Andley, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Bharadwaj, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

The offence against the appellant involves provisions related to criminal conspiracy, cheating, breach of trust, and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. Specifically, the allegations include violations of Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) (!) .

Additionally, the case involves offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly Section 45, which pertains to the offense of money laundering, and provisions related to the attachment and proceeds of crime (!) .

Therefore, the principal penal sections involved in the offence against the appellant are Sections 120B, 420, 406, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.


Table of Content
1. background on bail application and allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments regarding bail and investigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's reasoning on bail considerations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. court's conclusion and bail order. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2025, passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by which the application preferred by the appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) seeking grant of regular bail, came to be rejected.

3. The appellant is a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL), and is also non- executive Director of M/s. ACIL Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. The group of companies including subsidiaries and associate concerns is collectively referred to as the “Amtek Group”. During the period 2017-2018, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against entities belonging to Amtek G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top