New Delhi: In a significant ruling that reinforces the primacy of personal liberty over stringent special laws, the Supreme Court of India has held that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle, the Court clarified, holds true even in serious money laundering cases.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, on January 6, 2026, set aside a Delhi High Court order that had previously denied bail to Arvind Dham, the former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd.

Dham, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on July 9, 2024, in connection with a massive bank fraud case, had spent over 16 months in custody. While the ED alleged a staggering fraud involving nearly ₹38,000 crore, the Supreme Court observed that the "gravity of the offence" cannot be a perpetual ground to deny bail when the state fails to ensure a timely trial.

The central theme of the judgment is the prevention of "pre-trial punishment." The Bench observed that when an undertrial is kept in jail for a long period without any reasonable progress in the trial, the detention effectively turns into a punishment before a conviction is even reached.

"Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pre-trial detention into a form of punishment," the Bench noted.

One of the most vital takeaways from this ruling is the Court’s refusal to treat economic offences as a single "monolithic" category. The ED had argued that the seriousness of the money laundering allegations and the statutory "twin conditions" of Section 45 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) should override the plea for bail.

However, the Court rejected this approach. It held that:

Speedy Trial is Inviolable: The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is not "eclipsed" or hidden by the nature of the crime, no matter how serious the allegations are.
No Blanket Denials: Economic offences vary in their facts and degrees. Courts cannot simply group all such cases together to issue blanket denials of bail.
State Responsibility: If the State or the prosecuting agency (like the ED) does not have the "wherewithal" or the resources to ensure a speedy trial, it cannot use the seriousness of the crime as a reason to keep an accused behind bars indefinitely.

The Court looked closely at the specific facts of the case to determine if Dham's continued stay in jail was justified:

Maximum Sentence: The maximum punishment for the offences Dham is charged with is seven years. He had already served nearly 17 months.
Stage of Trial: Despite the time elapsed, the trial had not even reached the stage of "taking cognizance." The proceedings were still stuck at the "scrutiny of documents" stage.
Number of Witnesses: With 210 witnesses to be examined, the Court found "no likelihood" of the trial concluding anytime soon.
Custody of Evidence: The evidence against Dham is primarily documentary. Since these documents are already in the possession of the ED, there was little risk of him tampering with them.
Cooperation: The Court noted that Dham had joined the investigation even before his arrest and had cooperated with the agency. Notably, out of 28 accused persons in the case, only Dham had been arrested.

The ED had strongly opposed the bail, claiming that Dham was an influential person who had instructed his cousin, Anuradha Kapur (described as a "dummy director"), not to cooperate with the probe.

The Supreme Court called this allegation “wholly incredulous.” It pointed out a simple timeline: Dham had been in custody since July 2024, but Ms. Kapur was only listed as a witness in August 2025. The Court found it hard to believe he could have influenced her under such circumstances. Furthermore, the Court found the allegations regarding the "dissipation of proceeds of crime" (spending or hiding the money) untenable, as Dham was not a signatory to the sale documents in question.

This judgment builds upon recent landmark cases like Manish Sisodia and V. Senthil Balaji, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that Section 45 of the PMLA does not mean an absolute bar on bail if constitutional rights are being violated.

The Bench cited the Satender Kumar Antil (2022) case to reiterate that even in economic offences, the period of incarceration and the likelihood of a trial starting soon are essential factors for a judge to consider.

While granting bail, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure Dham remains available for the legal process:

He must provide a mobile number to the ED and remain accessible.
He must surrender his passport to the trial court.
He is prohibited from leaving India without the prior permission of the trial court.

The ruling serves as a stern reminder to investigative agencies that the "seriousness of the offence" is not a blank check for indefinite detention. By prioritizing the "libertarian conscience" of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: Justice delayed is not just justice denied, but in the context of Article 21, it is a violation of the very soul of the Indian legal system.

Case Details:

Case Title: Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe
Order Date: January 6, 2026