AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 nonexecutive 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 Group. 4. FIRs were registered on 21.12.2022 at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging commission of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the appellant was arrayed as an accused along with twenty seven other individuals. In the aforementioned FIRs there is an allegation of fraud to the extent of INR 385.35 crores and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for interim bail. The appellant was granted interim bail on medical grounds on 11.03.2025 till 01.04.2025. By the impugned order dated 19.08.2025, the High Court rejected application for regular bail. 9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is aged about 64 years and suffers from multiple ailments. It is further submitted that appellant is in custody for past about 16 months and 20 days and his long incarceration, is violative of the Right to Liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on decisions of this Court [Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1291, Udhaw Singh v. Directorate Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 357, Prem Prakash v. Union of India, SLP (Crl.) No.691 of 2023 - Order dated 04.10.2024, Dineshchand Surana v. Asst. Director, ED, SLP (Crl.) No.15274 of 2024 - Order dated 06.08.2025, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, SLP (Crl.) No.16953 of 2025 - Judgment/Order dated 11.12.2025.]. It is pointed out that out of 28 individuals only t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791.]. It is also stated that the appellant is neither a flight risk nor can he tamper with the evidence. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 13. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the gravity of the offence disentitles the appellant from seeking any exemption from the mandatory twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. It is further submitted that the appellant is an influential person and had instructed his cousin, Ms. Anuradha Kapur, who is a dummy director in his group of companies, not to join the investigation. It is also submitted that the appellant has dissipated the proceeds of crime i.e., immovable properties at Alwar and Panipat after attachment. It is contended that mere incarceration for a long period cannot be a sole ground for bail, ignoring the gravity of an offence especially when there are allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 and B. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70.]. It is contended that delay in trial, if any, is attributable to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 813.]. 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 [Manish Sisodia (supra)]. 16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil Balaji's case V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 has held that under the statutes such as PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21. 17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment and that documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility of tampering with the same. 18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. 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. 20. As regards the allegation that the appellant instructed Ms. Anuradha Kapur not to join the investigation, the same does not inspire confidence, particularly, in view of the fact that appellant has been in custody prior to concerned witness being formally arrayed as a witness. It is noteworthy that the appellant is in custody since 09.07.2024 and Ms. Kapur was arrayed as a witness only on 02.08.2025. The allegation, therefore, is wholly incredulous. 21. The record reveals that the prosecution complaint was filed on 06.09.2024. The Special Judge issued notice on 07.09.2024 to all proposed accused persons under the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS. The respondent challenged the said order before the High Court, resulting in eight months stay of proceedings, before the Special Judge, which was l....