Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Arvind Dham, a former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting his regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appellant was arrested in connection with two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) registered by the Directorate of Enforcement based on FIRs filed by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging fraud of INR 385.35 crores and INR 289 crores respectively. The appellant had been in custody for a significant period, and the trial was not likely to conclude soon. The court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA were not satisfied against the appellant, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court also noted that the appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was infringed due to the prolonged incarceration. Consequently, the court granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail under PMLA - Section 45 PMLA - Twin Conditions - The court considered whether the appellant satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, i.e., that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail given the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of trial concluding soon. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 483 BNSS - Inherent Powers - The court examined the scope of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to grant bail. The court noted that the provision is analogous to Section 482 CrPC and can be invoked for securing the ends of justice. (Para 2) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 - The court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the appellant's continued detention, given the delay in trial, warranted bail. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS read with Section 45 PMLA, considering the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA and the prolonged incarceration of the appellant.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The appellant is granted regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to speedy trial
- Prolonged incarceration without trial commencement violates fundamental rights
- Economic offences do not form a separate class for bail determination
- Grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- 2002 (PMLA) requires consideration of twin conditions
- Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA applies to certain categories of accused
- Delay in trial attributable to prosecution is a relevant factor for bail
- Custody no longer required if investigation is complete
- Bail under PMLA
- Section 45 PMLA twin conditions
- Section 483 BNSS
- Right to speedy trial
- Article 21 Constitution
- Prima facie not guilty test
- Long incarceration as ground for bail
