2022 (5) TMI 1424 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking vacation of stay granted - permission granted by the trial court to the applicant/respondent to travel to the U.S.A. for treatment of his prostate cancer, has been kept in abeyance - availability of the treatment in India or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT - In MANOJ KUMAR BABULAL PUNAMIYA VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND TR. DIR. OF ENFORCEMENT 2014 (9) TMI 1264 - SUPREME COURT the stem cell treatment was not available in India, and whereas in Miss Marie Andre 1983 (7) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT , she was allowed to take treatment of Cancer in Canada as all her family members were stationed there, which is not the case here. The treatment sought for is very much available in India and all his family members are also in India, hence considering the allegations against him and the apprehension during investigation he may not dispose of or otherwise deal with properties in USA to the detriment of investigating agency or he may not return; no indulgence can be given to respondent and hence this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Permission to travel abroad for medical treatment.
2. Allegations of influencing witnesses and potential flight risk.
3. Availability of medical treatment in India.
4. Ownership of properties abroad and potential asset liquidation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Permission to travel abroad for medical treatment:
The core issue revolves around the applicant's request to travel to the USA for prostate cancer treatment. The trial court initially granted permission, emphasizing that the applicant has the right to choose his doctor and treatment location. The court imposed several conditions, including furnishing a financial bond, informing the court of travel details, and not extending the stay without permission. However, the High Court set aside this permission, emphasizing the ongoing investigation and potential risks.

2. Allegations of influencing witnesses and potential flight risk:
The petitioner argued that the respondent had previously influenced witnesses, citing statements from various directors who claimed the respondent threatened them and obstructed their cooperation with the investigation. The petitioner also highlighted the respondent's involvement in a significant financial scam and the possibility of him fleeing the country if allowed to travel abroad.

3. Availability of medical treatment in India:
The petitioner presented evidence from AIIMS, Delhi, confirming that sufficient treatment and surgery facilities for prostate cancer are available in India. The High Court noted that the specific treatment sought by the respondent, Cryoablation Therapy, is available in multiple hospitals across India. The court emphasized that the treatment being available locally negates the necessity of traveling abroad.

4. Ownership of properties abroad and potential asset liquidation:
The petitioner presented statements and documents indicating the respondent's ownership of properties in the USA, including hotels and nightclubs. The court expressed concerns that allowing the respondent to travel could enable him to liquidate or dispose of these assets, potentially hindering the investigation. The court also noted the respondent's brother's anticipatory bail application, which alleged threats from the respondent, further supporting the argument against granting travel permission.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the respondent's application to travel abroad, citing the availability of medical treatment in India, the potential risk of influencing witnesses, and concerns about asset liquidation. The court underscored the importance of ensuring the respondent's presence in India for the ongoing investigation and upheld the public interest in preventing any potential miscarriage of justice.

← Previous Next →