New Delhi, Jan 6 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday said prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made the remarks while granting bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham in a money laundering case related to Rs 27,000 crore bank fraud.

While setting aside the August 19, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court denying bail to Dham, the bench said, "Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as a homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail." Noting that Dham was arrested in 2024, the bench said, "The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Dham is a former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL). He is also the non-executive director of ACIL Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. The group of companies including subsidiaries and associate concerns are collectively referred to as the "Amtek Group".

Justice Aradhe, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

The bench noted that Dham has joined the investigation even prior to his arrest on June 19, July 2 and July 9, 2024 and, therefore, he has cooperated with the probe.

"Out of 28 individuals, only the appellant has been arrested. The order dated August 20, 2025 of the Special Court records the submission of ED that investigation qua the appellant has concluded.

"The maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years. The appellant has been in custody for the past around 16 months and 20 days," the bench noted.

It said that various benches of the apex court, while taking into account the period of incarceration which ranges from three months to 17 months in several cases, have granted bail to the accused.

"In the instant case, no cognisance has been taken on the prosecution complaint and the proceeding is at the stage of scrutiny of documents. No material has been placed on record to show the fate of the application filed by the ED on September 27, 2025 seeking day-to-day hearing even after a period of approximately three months has expired.

"There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future," it said.

The top court, while granting bail to Dham, imposed a condition on him and asked him to provide one telephone/mobile number on which he can be contacted by the ED officers to ascertain his whereabouts while he is on bail. It asked him to surrender his passport to the trial court and not leave India without the permission of the trial court.

The bench said the court, while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail, has to consider the gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case.

"One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the accused is alleged to have committed. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with the 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 said.

Justice Aradhe said it is not advisable, therefore, on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis.

"It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency, including the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.

"Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial," it said, adding statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.

FIRs were registered on December 21, 2022 at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging commission of offences under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which Dham was arrayed as an accused along with 27 other individuals.

On the basis of the FIRs on March 21, 2023, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) alleging laundering of proceeds of crime. Dham was arrested by the ED on July 9, 2024 and chargesheeted in September, 2024. PTI MNL MNL KSS KSS