ARVIND DHAM versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

ARVIND DHAM versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Appellant's continued incarceration for around 16 months and 20 days, when investigation qua him is concluded, cognizance has not been taken and trial is not likely to commence soon while primary evidence is documentary and in custody of prosecution, violates his right to speedy trial under Article 21; given the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years and delay is attributable to the prosecution, bail was warranted and the High Court order rejecting bail was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Arvind Dham; Respondent: Directorate of Enforcement
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 19.08.2025 Rejecting Bail; Trial Pending and Cognizance of Prosecution Complaint Not Yet Taken
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 quashed and set aside
Legal Topics
Bail, Right to Speedy Trial, Pre Trial Detention, Economic Offences
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Money Laundering Judicial Review Bail Right to Speedy Trial Pre Trial Detention Economic Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arvind Dham

Appellant

Directorate of Enforcement

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 19.08.2025 Rejecting Bail; Trial Pending and Cognizance of Prosecution Complaint Not Yet Taken

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA and Section 483 BNSS when he has been incarcerated for a long period and the trial has not commenced
  2. 2 Whether prolonged pretrial incarceration converts detention into punishment in violation of Article 21
  3. 3 Whether allegations of influencing witnesses and dissipation of proceeds justify continued custody despite documentary evidence being in custody of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant's continued incarceration for around 16 months and 20 days, when investigation qua him is concluded, cognizance has not been taken and trial is not likely to commence soon while primary evidence is documentary and in custody of prosecution, violates his right to speedy trial under Article 21; given the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years and delay is attributable to the prosecution, bail was warranted and the High Court order rejecting bail was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 quashed and set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 quashed and set aside
  • Appellant Arvind Dham to be released on bail during pendency of trial arising out of ECIR/GNZO/13/2024 and ECIR/GNZO/14/2024 pending before the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-02, Rouse Avenue District Court