In a recent ruling, Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court emphasized that claiming to be "sick and infirm" does not guarantee bail in cases related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court made it clear that medical pleas cannot diminish the seriousness of money laundering offenses. The judge noted that the need for bail due to health issues is only valid if the accused is to receive treatment while in custody.

This decision was pronounced during the Court's denial of bail to Arvind Dham, the former head of Amtek Group, amidst a significant investigation involving a Rs 27,000 crore bank fraud by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Facts:

Dham is alleged to have orchestrated these fraudulent activities through a web of over 500 companies, where he exercised control over the “flagship and shell entities.”

Seeking bail, Dham had invoked the first provision of Section 45 of the PMLA, arguing he qualified as a "sick and infirm" individual. However, the Court rejected this claim by stating that Dham's medical issues could still be managed while in custody, where inmates are entitled to necessary treatment, including transfers to specialized hospitals if needed.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the ED provided substantial evidence indicating Dham's involvement in manipulating financial accounts, inflating asset values, and transferring funds through over 500 entities.

The nature of the crimes was portrayed as systematic and calculated, negating Dham's suggestion that they were isolated incidents.

Justice Dudeja further noted that granting bail could lead to potential interference with ongoing investigations and trials. He asserted that the severe implications these offenses have on the economy and public trust made bail inappropriate.

Given the serious repercussions for the economy and the banking sector, such offences undermine public confidence and harm depositors and creditors. Granting bail too liberally in such matters risks sending a counterproductive signal,” the Court said.

The Court acknowledged that economic crimes, particularly money laundering, have become increasingly complex with advancements in technology and artificial intelligence.

“These offences pose a significant challenge for investigating agencies, given the complex and intricate nature of the transactions and the involvement of multiple actors. A meticulous and thorough investigation is essential to ensure that innocent persons are not wrongfully implicated and that the actual offenders are brought to justice,” it said.

Justice Dudeja also dismissed Dham's argument regarding trial delays, emphasizing the intricate nature of the case and asserted that Dham's continued detention was essential to uphold the integrity of the legal process.

“It is also relevant that the ED's case is founded not on mere suspicion but on extensive documentary evidence, forensic audits, and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. These materials prima facie implicate the applicant in the alleged money laundering scheme,” the Court said.

“While the defence may challenge their admissibility and credibility at trial, at the bail stage they cannot be ignored. The statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA operates against the accused, requiring him to rebut the inference of guilt. The applicant has not discharged that burden,” added the court.

Case Details: ARVIND DHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, BAIL APPLN.-544/2025