‘Prolonged pretrial incarceration has effect of converting detention into punishment’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made the remarks while granting bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham in a money laundering case related to Rs 27,000 crore bank fraud.

While setting aside the August 19, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court denying bail to Dham, the bench said, “Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as a homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.”

Noting that Dham was arrested in 2024, the bench said, “The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Dham is a former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL). He is also the non-executive director of ACIL Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. The group of companies including subsidiaries and associate concerns are collectively referred to as the “Amtek Group”.

Justice Aradhe, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

The bench noted that Dham has joined the investigation even prior to his arrest on June 19, July 2 and July 9, 2024 and, therefore, he has cooperated with the probe.

“Out of 28 individuals, only the appellant has been arrested. The order dated August 20, 2025 of the Special Court records the submission of ED that investigation qua the appellant has concluded.

“The maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years. The appellant has been in custody for the past around 16 months and 20 days,” the bench noted.

It said that various benches of the apex court, while taking into account the period of incarceration which ranges from three months to 17 months in several cases, have granted bail to the accused.

“In the instant case, no cognisance has been taken on the prosecution complaint and the proceeding is at the stage of scrutiny of documents. No material has been placed on record to show the fate of the application filed by the ED on September 27, 2025 seeking day-to-day hearing even after a period of approximately three months has expired.