2026 Supreme(SC) 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Arvind Dham – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025)
Decided On : 06-01-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Money Laundering – All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another – Court cannot categorize all offences into one group and deny bail on that basis.
(2) Prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment – Documentary evidence already seized by prosecution eliminates possibility of tampering with same.
(3) Right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, is not eclipsed by nature of offence.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 read with Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail application – Rejection – Gravamen of allegation against appellant is that he is ultimate beneficiary of fraud which was a well- orchestrated scheme, executed at his behest, involving diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, resulting in substantial wrongful loss to Public Sector Banks – One of circumstances to consider gravity of offences is also term of sentence prescribed for the offence – Court has also to take into account object of special Act, gravity of offence and attending circumstances along with period of sentence – All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another – It is not advisable on part of Court to categorize all offences into one group and deny bail on that basis – If State or any prosecuting agency including, court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect fundamental right of accused, to have speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, then State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose plea for bail on the ground that crime committed is serious – Article 21 of Constitution applies irrespective of nature of crime – Prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pre-trial detention into punishment. (Para 15)

(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 read with Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail application – Rejection – Prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment – Documentary evidence already seized by prosecution eliminates possibility of tampering with same – Right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, is not eclipsed by nature of offence – Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment – Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting blanket denial of bail – Maximum sentence which can be imposed on appellant is seven years – Appellant is in custody for past around 16 months and 20 days – No cognizance has been taken on prosecution complaint and proceeding is at stage of scrutiny of documents – There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding – There is no likelihood of trial commencing in near future – Continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of prosecution, violates right of appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of Constitution of India – There is no evidence that appellant was signatory to any sale document – Allegation of dissipation of proceeds of crime by him is untenable at this stage – Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside and bail granted to appellant. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23)

Facts of the case:

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

Findings of Court:

The record reveals that prosecution complaint was filed on 06.09.2024. Special Judge issued notice on 07.09.2024 to all proposed accused persons under proviso to Section 223 of BNSS. Respondent challenged said order before High Court, resulting in eight months stay of proceedings, before Special Judge, which was lifted on 23.05.2025 only upon withdrawal of petition.

Result : Appeal allowed. Bail granted.