Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 127 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - rejection of application for grant of permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT - In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that though it is not disputed that the proclamation issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. in relation to present FIR was set aside vide order dated 10.04.2023 and that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in this case vide order dated 20.04.2023, one of the conditions in the order by virtue of which he was granted anticipatory bail was that he will not leave the country without the permission of the Court. Thus, the anticipatory bail granted to him was by way of a conditional order, which was accepted by the petitioner and he had returned to India on 25.04.2023. The LOC opened by the State/EOW also stands cancelled vide order dated 26.04.2023 - However, the LOC opened by the Directorate of Enforcement has neither been cancelled nor quashed and remains in existence, alongwith an another LOC opened by the Income Tax Department. Further, while granting regular bail to the petitioner in the case arising out of ECIR dated 08.08.2021 also, the condition to seek prior permission of the Court before travelling abroad was imposed by the learned ASJ. The investigation against the petitioner is pending in both the cases i.e. in FIR registered by the Special Cell (EOW) and in the ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement. The liberty and the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to travel abroad is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, and this restriction was imposed upon the petitioner while he was granted anticipatory bail in the present FIR and regular bail in the present ECIR. In this Court s opinion, learned ASJ has rightly held that petitioner has not placed on record any cogent reason to travel abroad and that there is no permanent address of the petitioner in Dubai. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Permission to travel abroad. 2. Validity of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs). 3. Investigation status and petitioner's involvement. 4. Fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Summary: Permission to Travel Abroad: The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 08.07.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which denied him permission to travel to Dubai for 30 days to manage his business. The petitioner argued that he had voluntarily returned to India to join the investigation, was granted anticipatory bail, and the LOC against him was canceled. He contended that the denial of travel permission violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the ASJ dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner had not provided sufficient details about his permanent address or business in Dubai, and the investigation was ongoing. Validity of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs): The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Income Tax Department had issued LOCs against the petitioner, which were still active. The ED argued that the petitioner was a flight risk and involved in international hawala operations, aiding the main accused in transferring Rs. 24 crore to Dubai. The ASJ's order emphasized that the petitioner had not substantiated his claims about his business or residence in Dubai, and thus, permission to travel was rightly denied. Investigation Status and Petitioner's Involvement: The investigation revealed that the petitioner was involved in hawala transactions and had facilitated the transfer of Rs. 24 crore to Dubai through 18 shell companies. The petitioner was implicated in aiding the main accused, Sukash Chandrashekhar, in a significant extortion and money laundering scheme. The ASJ noted that the investigation was still ongoing, and the petitioner had not provided any compelling reason to travel abroad. Fundamental Right to Travel under Article 21: While acknowledging the fundamental right to travel under Article 21, the court held that this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions. The ASJ had imposed a condition in the bail order that the petitioner could not leave the country without court permission. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any urgent need to travel and could manage his business remotely or through his son, who was already involved in the business. Conclusion: The Delhi High Court upheld the ASJ's order, dismissing the petitions and finding no reason to interfere with the decision. The court emphasized that the petitioner's right to travel was subject to reasonable restrictions due to the ongoing investigation and lack of sufficient justification for the travel request. The judgment was to be uploaded on the website forthwith.
|