Delhi High Court denies bail to former Amtek Chairman Arvind Dham in Rs 2,700 crore bank fraud case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected former Amtek Group chairman Arvind Dham petition seeking regular bail in connection with a Rs 2,700-crore bank fraud case.

Earlier in June, the Supreme Court had rejected Dham appeal for interim bail on medical grounds, saying he had grossly “abused the process” of the court by filing the fresh appeal seeking interim bail.

On July 9, the ED had arrested Dham under the provisions of money laundering law in a case pertaining to ACIL Ltd, an Amtek group company. Subsequently, the Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, granted custody of Dham to the investigating agency.


The ED had initiated investigation on the basis of first information reports registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, arising from complaints by IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. The complainants had alleged diversion of bank loans through cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust and causing wrongful loss to the banks.

The agency said the probe revealed that Amtek group had defaulted on loans exceeding Rs 2,700 crore taken from more than 15 banks. The group companies ARG Ltd, ACIL, Amtek Auto Ltd., Metalyst Forging and Castex Technologies along with other group concerns were taken to insolvency.

Further investigations revealed that Dham was the beneficial owner of several benami properties in companies that had employees of the Amtek group such as peons, drivers, field staff and persons with no linkage to the group companies acting as directors, the agency said. Dham continued to possess such properties beneficially held by him and never disclosed this to any of the creditors, it added.

In December 2024, the high court had upheld Dham's arrest by the ED and a Delhi court 's subsequent remand order. It said that the data on financial exposure of Dham’s group of companies was about Rs 30,000 crore and the lenders including many public banks had been struggling since 2015 in order to somehow recover the liabilities, the process for which had now culminated into insolvency proceedings where a haircut of 99.91% of the amount had been proposed by the petitioner.