Arvind Dham Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India)
Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration Under PMLA Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Section 45 Rigours
The Supreme Court granted regular bail to the appellant, a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of the Amtek Group, holding that continued incarceration for over 16 months without commencement of trial violated the right to life and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court reiterated that statutory restrictions under Section 45 PMLA cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention, particularly where the maximum punishment prescribed is seven years and the trial is not likely to begin in the near future.
The Court noted that investigation qua the appellant stood concluded, cognizance had not yet been taken, the case was still at the stage of scrutiny of documents, and as many as 210 witnesses were proposed to be examined, making early conclusion of trial unrealistic. Importantly, out of 28 accused persons, only the appellant had been arrested, and the evidence relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate was largely documentary and already in its custody, negating any real apprehension of tampering.
Rejecting the prosecution’s objections, the Court held that allegations of influencing witnesses and dissipation of proceeds of crime were unsubstantiated and implausible, especially since the appellant was already in custody when the concerned witness was arrayed and no material linked him to the alleged property transactions. The Court also found that delay in trial was largely attributable to the Enforcement Directorate itself, which had secured a stay of proceedings for nearly eight months.
Relying on consistent precedent including Manish Sisodia, V. Senthil Balaji, Padam Chand Jain, and Satender Kumar Antil, the Court reaffirmed that economic offences are not a homogeneous class warranting blanket denial of bail, and that pre-trial detention cannot become a substitute for punishment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directed the appellant’s release on bail subject to conditions, and reinforced that constitutional courts must intervene where liberty is imperilled by prolonged incarceration without trial
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
