The Supreme Court on June 16, 2025, refused to entertain a plea by Arvind Dham, promoter of the Amtek Group, who sought interim bail in an ongoing money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A vacation bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice PB Varale expressed displeasure over the repeated filing of similar pleas. The Court questioned how the current application was filed during vacation despite the earlier dismissal of a similar plea by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results
"First of all, I don't understand the appearance of senior counsel during vacations. This court has often commented on that," remarked Justice Mehta at the outset.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who argued that interim relief was being sought on two grounds: the cognisance of the offence was stayed by the Delhi High Court at the request of the opposing party, and that the petitioner had been in custody for 10 months.
Justice Mehta responded, “Was this ground available to you when you first approached this Court? Sorry, this is nothing but misuse of process.”
Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan
The Court also referred to the dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Dham, highlighting that the matter had already been decided and the same relief could not be sought before a different bench.
“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,” observed the bench.
Earlier, on May 30, the Delhi High Court had denied interim bail to Dham. His regular bail application is listed for hearing on July 15. Notably, the Supreme Court had also refused to extend the earlier interim bail granted to him on medical grounds on April 7.
Read also: Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to impleadment of legal heir under CPC
When the petitioner’s counsel requested that the Supreme Court direct the High Court to decide the interim bail plea expeditiously, the bench firmly declined.
“You are asking us to exercise supervisory jurisdiction? That’s not how it works,” said Justice Mehta.
With these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, reaffirming that repetitive petitions seeking the same relief are not maintainable and constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
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.
