Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Amtek Group Promoter's Plea For Interim Bail In Money Laundering Case

The Supreme Court today(June 16) refused to entertain the plea of Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham, seeking interim relief in a money laundering case against him.

A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice PB Varale questioned how the second plea was filed during vacation when a three-judge bench of the Court had refused to entertain the plea at the first instance.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner.  

At the outset, Justice Mehta questioned the appearance of senior counsel during vacations. "First of all, I don't under the appearance of senior counsel during vacations. This court has often commented on that, and before addressing on merits, come to page 239. Are you asking us to review that order?"

Reportedly, the Delhi High Court denied him interim bail on May 30, pending his regular bail plea, which is to be heard on 15 July. Thereafter, on April 7, the Supreme Court refused to extend the interim bail granted to him on medical grounds earlier.

Rohatgi responded that the petitioner is simply asking for interim bail.  On this, Justice Misra asked: "Again, you are seeking interim bail? On what grounds?"

Rohatgi responded: "On two grounds. Cognisance was about to be taken, [but] it was stayed by the high court at the instance of other side. I am in [custody] for 10 months..."

However, Justice Mehta was not convinced. He said: "Was this ground available to you when you first approached this court? Sorry, this is nothing but misuse of process...All this arguments, Mr Rohatgi, we are not impressed by the tactics of the petitioner. You lost, your SLP was dismissed by a three-judge bench of this Court, and now you are trying to get into this vacation bench, trying to get the same relief in a matter which has been [dismissed]."

Alternatively, Rohatgi requested that the High Court be asked to decide the application for interim bail expeditiously. On this as well, Justice Mehta refused and questioned if Rohatgi is asking for the Court to exercise "supervisory jurisdiction".

Consequently, Rohatgi decided to withdraw the SLP.

Case Details: ARVIND DHAM Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT|SLP(Crl) No. 8997/2025

SLP is drawn by AOR Sahil Tagotra.