The Supreme Court on Monday emphatically dismissed a plea for interim bail filed by Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham in a money laundering case, calling it a clear “misuse of process.”
The vacation bench led by Justice Sandeep Mehta made strong remarks questioning the timing and intent behind approaching a new bench after a previous dismissal by a three-judge bench.
Court Questions ‘Tactical’ Approach
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Dham, sought interim relief on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in court proceedings. However, the bench showed little sympathy, citing the dismissal of Dham’s special leave petition (SLP) by a three-judge bench earlier.
“We are not impressed by the tactics of the petitioner. You lost, your SLP was dismissed by a 3-judge bench of this Court, and now you are trying to get into this vacation bench, trying to get the same relief,” Justice Mehta remarked bluntly.
High Court Had Already Denied Bail
Dham’s plea for interim bail had earlier been denied by the Delhi High Court on May 30, and his regular bail application is scheduled to be heard on July 15. Rohatgi argued that Dham had already spent over 10 months in custody and that the ongoing proceedings remained stalled. Despite this, the bench refused to entertain the petition.
As an alternative, Rohatgi requested the court to expedite the hearing of the pending bail plea in the High Court. But Justice Mehta was unmoved.
“Now you want us to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court?” the judge asked, reinforcing the principle of judicial hierarchy.
With no traction on either front, Rohatgi eventually withdrew the petition.
Implications For High-Profile Financial Cases
The ruling sends a strong signal against forum shopping and repetitive bail pleas, especially in white-collar crime and financial fraud cases. The court’s firm position underscores a broader judicial sentiment: tactical re-litigation will not be entertained, even under the pretext of urgency or prolonged detention.
This outcome is likely to shape how future high-profile economic offenders approach interim bail, making it clear that only substantial new grounds or procedural lapses will merit reconsideration by the top court.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
