The court underscored that in cases of serious economic offences, the gravity of the allegations and the societal impact outweigh individual rights to bail, especially when considerable evidence indicates guilt.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. That the present application is being preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“ BNSS ”] read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [“PMLA”] for grant of regular bail on behalf of Mr. Arvind Dham [“Petitioner”] who has been arraigned as Accused No. 1 in ECIR/GNZO/13-14/2024 and ECIR/GNZO/14/2024 arising out of FIRs having RC No. RC2202022E00199 dated 29.12.2022 and RC No. RC22322A009 dated 21.12.2022 which were registered by CBI, AC-V, New Delhi. Petitioner filed a bail application before the Ld. Special Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2025.

Brief Background

2. The present proceedings arise out of an ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) pursuant to large-scale allegations of financial mismanagement, fraud, and money laundering within the Amtek Group of companies, including Amtek Auto Ltd., ACIL Ltd., and allied entities. The trigger for investigation was a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court highlighting bank frauds exceeding Rs. 12,000 crores, alongside multiple FIRs lodged by the CBI and other agencies. These FIRs alleged diversion of funds and creation of shell entities to siphon public money. The alleged activities have caused immense losses to public sector banks. The scale of the matter necessitated a detailed investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

3. The investigation encompassed the affairs of M/s Amtek Auto Ltd., M/s Metalyst Forging Ltd., Castex Technologies Ltd., ACIL Ltd., and ARGL Ltd., which had collectively availed loans exceeding Rs. 26,000 crores from a consortium of public sector banks, including SBI, IDBI Bank, Karur Vysya Bank, and Bank of Maharashtra. Due to defaults in repayment, these accounts turned into Non-Performing Assets. Forensic and transaction audits by resolution professionals revealed fraudulent diversion and misuse of these loan proceeds. These revelations formed the factual substratum for initiation of proceedings under the PMLA. The allegations indicate a concerted scheme of misappropriation affecting multiple stakeholders.

4. Two specific FIRs registered by the CBI form part of the scheduled offences underlying the present PMLA case. FIR No. RC2202022E0019, dated 29.12.2022, emanated from a complaint by Bank of Maharashtra alleging diversion of funds by ACIL Ltd. and its directors under Sections 120B/420 IPC and Section 7 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. FIR No. RC2232022A0009, dated 21.12.2022, arose from a complaint by IDBI Bank alleging fraudulent term loan availed by ACIL Ltd., attracting Sections 120B/420 IPC and Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Additionally, SFIO investigations disclosed commission of offences under Section 447 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013, also a scheduled offence under PMLA. These multiple proceedings converge into th