Requirement of direct evidentiary link for allegations of asset dissipation

To oppose bail on the ground that proceeds of crime or attached properties have been alienated or dissipated, the prosecution must establish a direct, demonstrable link connecting the accused to the transaction. Generalized assertions concerning property transfers by corporate entities or third parties cannot be automatically imputed to an accused without proof of authorization, execution, or direct involvement. Where an accused was incarcerated at the time of disputed property conveyances and was neither a director nor a signatory to the transaction, personal culpability for asset dissipation cannot be presumed at the bail stage. Courts require concrete evidence establishing that the accused directed or facilitated the illegal transfer from within custody. Absent clear material showing active participation or authorization, collateral property disputes involving distinct legal entities cannot justify extending personal pre-trial detention. (Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2026 INSC 12)