Being “Sick And Infirm” Is Not Automatic Passport To Bail In Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court said that being “sick and infirm” is not an automatic passport to bail in serious economic offences.

A Bail Application was filed by an accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

A Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “The applicant invokes the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA on the ground of being a “sick and infirm” person. However, being “sick and infirm” is not an automatic passport to bail in serious economic offences. A perusal of order dated 01.04.2025 reveals that discharge summaries from both hospitals indicated that petitioner was suffering from non-critical CAD, which was a stable condition and did not require any specialised treatment available at jail referral hospitals or AIIMS; the prescribed course of treatment had already been advised by the attending doctors, and therefore the petitioner’s health could be adequately managed in custody, necessitating no special arrangements, leading to the rejection of the request for extension of interim bail.”

The Bench added that the Petitioner had non-obstructive coronary artery disease as per CT coronary angiography and, in view of worsening angina, required elective Coronary Angiography (CAG), which is a day-care procedure not requiring overnight admission, with further medical course to be determined based on the CAG findings, which may or may not necessitate further intervention.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Case Background

A case was 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 (PIL) before the Supreme Court, highlighting bank frauds exceeding ₹12,000 crores, alongside multiple FIRs lodged by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) 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 PMLA. The Applicant was the promoter and controlling mind of the Amtek Group, managing the affairs of its flagship companies. He served as Managing Director/Director in multiple group entities and was actively involved in all strategic and operational decisions. The investigation established that he spearheaded the diversion of loan funds and the systematic defrauding of financial creditors.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, reiterated, “Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken for grant of bail. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.”

The Court elucidated that the principle that economic offences warrant stringent treatment in bail matters is not absolute, however, in cases involving large-scale diversion of public funds the gravity of the offences assumes overriding significance.

“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”, it added.

The Court remarked that the alleged proceeds of crime far exceed any recovery secured through insolvency proceedings and the Applicant’s proposed resolution plan, envisaging payment of only ₹35 crores against dues of over thousands of crores, reflects a near-total haircut to creditors.

“This underscores the irreparable nature of the alleged loss to the public exchequer. In such circumstances, premature release risks undermining efforts to secure accountability. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against leniency in cases involving massive public fund defalcation. That caution must be heeded here”, it noted.

The Court observed that with the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, economic offences such as money laundering have emerged as a serious threat to the financial system of the country.

“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 further noted.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the argument that trial delay justifies bail does not hold in this factual setting as the complexity of the case, the multiplicity of transactions, and the layered corporate structures necessarily entail a protracted trial.

“The applicant’s continued custody, in such circumstances, is not an arbitrary deprivation of liberty but a necessary measure to preserve the integrity of the 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. While the defence may challenge their admissibility and credibility at trial, at the bail stage they cannot be ignored”, it said.

The Court concluded that the allegations against the Applicant pertain to an economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct causing grave loss to public sector banks and such offences erode the fabric of economic governance and public trust and cannot be taken lightly.

“While the applicant may be ailing, adequate medical care can be provided in custody under judicial supervision. The trial is at a nascent stage, and the statutory conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA are not satisfied. On a cumulative assessment of all factors, this Court finds no ground to grant bail”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application and refused to grant bail to the accused.

Cause Title- Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7016)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, Advocates Sumer Singh Boparai, Shambhu K. Thakur, Ayush Puri, Abhihsek Singh, Sirhaan Seth, Sidhant Saraswat, Surya Pratap Singh, Abhilash Kumar Pathak, Talib Mustafa, Khanav Madnani, and Sanskriti S. Gupta.

Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Manish Jain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, Advocates Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, and Rakesh Jourawal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment