Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the Petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking suspension of Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) issued by Respondents, and for permitting Petitioners, allegedly involved in bank fraud case, to travel abroad, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.*, stated that it found no reason to decline the request of Petitioners for travelling abroad. Hence, permitted petitioners to travel on fulfilling the conditions, similar to as imposed by the Trial Court in the previous orders.
Background
In the present case, the respondent alleged that a bank fraud was committed by the Petitioners 1 and 2, against the Central Bank of India and other consortium banks, amounting to Rs.1626.74 crores. Petitioners were charged by CBI and the ED in respect of various money laundering offences under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The Petitioners had filled this application for purpose of suspension of LOC issued against them for the purposes of travelling abroad for a specific period. The reasons for travel, as stated by Petitioner 1, was to spend time with his child and also to attend his graduation at Yale University, which was a matter of great pride for him. Similarly, the reasons for travel, as stated by Petitioner 2, was to spend time with his two children who are presently working and residing in the United States of America and were unable to visit India due to their work schedules.
The Trial Court had previously passed multiple orders allowing Petitioners to travel abroad on multiple occasions, fulfilling all the conditions imposed on them. There was no previous attempt on the part of Petitioners to hamper the trial and misuse any concessions granted earlier.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court found the reason stated by the Respondent to be highly generic and vague without giving particulars in any manner. The Court noted that the respondent opposed the present application, stating that the role of the Petitioners was under the grave suspicion, being the master-minds of the offence to cheat the Respondents. Respondent also stated that the Petitioners could not be allowed to travel abroad since the Petitioners, presumably in search of a safe haven, will not return to India to repay the loan. It also stated that, there was a grave risk in allowing Petitioners to travel and the departure of the Petitioners out of India would be detrimental to the economic interest of the country.
The Court noted that, the LOC at the behest of the CBI has already been closed and this fact was also previously captured in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Court had also noted the fact that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had set aside the declaration of fraud and also quashed the FIR. Though the Supreme Court had remitted the matter back to the said High Court in respect of the quashing of FIR, the declaration of fraud remains set aside. The FIR and all consequential proceedings on the complaint of the Respondents were currently stayed.
The Court further stated that the Special Judge, PMLA Court had specifically recorded thatthere was nothing in particular brought on record by the CBI to establish that Petitioners had attempted to hamper the trial and misuse any concessions granted earlier. Therefore, the Court found no reason to decline the request of Petitioners for travelling abroad.
The Court also stated that the right to travel has been held by the Supreme Court as an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction of the same without sufficient cause, would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The Court stated that reasons for travel by Petitioner 1, was to spend time with his child and to attend his graduation. Undoubtedly, the graduation of a child from Yale University was a matter of great pride. Thus, the Court permitted Petitioner 1 to travel abroad on certain conditions. Similarly, regarding Petitioner 2, the Court did not find inappropriate to permit Petitioner 2 to travel for the purpose of meeting his children.
Thus, the Court permitted thePetitioners to travel abroad and imposed similar conditions on them, as were imposed by the Trial Court in its previous orders granting the permission to travel.
[Vineet Gupta v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 7850 of 2025, decided on 06-06-2025]
Judgment authored by- Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Neena Nagpal, Malak M Bhatt, Vishvendra Tomar, Ajatshatru Singh Rawat and Tannavi Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Santosh Kumar Rout, Standing Counsel with Dharna Veragi, Shruti Tripathi and Shakshi Raj, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
