Being 'Sick And Infirm' Not Automatic Passport For Bail In PMLA, Medical Plea Can't Override Gravity Of Offence: Delhi High Court

Underscoring that being “sick and infirm” is not an automatic passport for bail in PMLA cases, the Delhi High Court has observed that medical plea cannot override the gravity of offence of money laundering.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that illness warrants bail only when treatment in custody is clearly inadequate.

“Therefore, the medical plea cannot override the gravity of the offence, societal interest, and the statutory rigour governing such matters,” the Court said.

The judge made the observations while denying bail to Arvind Dham, former Amtek Group chairperson in a Rs 27,000-crore bank fraud case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

It was alleged that Dham was the ultimate beneficial owner of the flagship companies, exercised control through a complex web of over 500 group and shell entities and was central in designing and executing the fraudulent schemes.

Dham had invoked the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA on the ground of being a “sick and infirm” person while seeking bail.

Rejecting the said argument, the Court observed that Dham's medical condition, though concerning, can be managed in custody, where the prison authorities are obligated to provide adequate treatment, including referral to specialised hospitals if required.

Further, the judge noted that the ED had placed on record materials suggesting Dham's active role in manipulation of accounts, overstatement of fixed assets, and routing of funds through more than 500 entities.

The Court said that they were not isolated or spontaneous acts but appeared to be part of a deliberate and sustained criminal design over years. Such conduct, if established, would exemplify the sophisticated nature of economic crime requiring robust law enforcement response, it added.

Justice Dudeja also observed that the Court cannot ignore the likelihood of interference with the investigation and trial if bail was granted and thus, Dham's continued custody was warranted.

“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,” the Court said.

It added 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 said.

The Court also rejected Dham's argument that the delay in trial justified grant of bail, observing that the complexity of the case, multiplicity of transactions and the layered corporate structures necessarily entail a protracted trial.

It said that Dham's continued custody was 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,” the Court said.

“While the defence may challenge their admissibility and credibility at trial, at the bail stage they cannot be ignored. The statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA operates against the accused, requiring him to rebut the inference of guilt. The applicant has not discharged that burden,” it added.

Title: Arvind Dham v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 993

Click here to read order