Rajasthan High Court Permits Foreign Visit Of PMLA Accused Subject To ₹25 Lakh Bank Guarantee
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a man arrested in a PMLA case to travel to Dubai and Singapore for business meetings, reiterating that the expression ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to go abroad.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) where the Apex Court had held that “the expression ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law”.
It thereafter said:
“This court is required to draw a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the prosecution to duly prosecute the petitioner so as to prevent him from evading the trial. From perusal of the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is clear that the paramount consideration is given to the condition imposed upon the persons who have been granted permission to go abroad, so as to ensure that they do not flee from justice. For ensuring the presence of the accused before the Trial Court, any appropriate condition can be imposed and in case the condition imposed by law is violated, appropriate coercive action can be taken“.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking to quash the trial court order denying him permission to travel to Dubai and Singapore for business purposes.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the petitioner and others under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence on 12 July 2021 and issued arrest warrants.
These warrants were returned unserved with a report of the concerned Head Constable stating that the petitioner had absconded. Consequently, the trial court issued standing arrest warrants against the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied under Sections 70(2) and 71 CrPC for conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants, which the trial court rejected. Meanwhile he approached the high court which passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to furnish bail bonds. He was released on bail with a condition not to leave India without prior court permission. When the petitioner sought permission to travel abroad for business meetings, the trial court rejected the application, citing a lack of documentary evidence.
Senior Advocate A.K. Gupta, representing the petitioner, argued that his client has the right to go abroad and that his client cannot be deprived of his right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law.
ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General R.D. Rastogi, opposed the petition, highlighting the petitioner’s earlier attempt to abscond and raising doubts regarding his return. It was alleged that the petitioner had secured interim relief by misrepresenting the facts of the case.
The court noted that the petitioner had submitted two letters dated December 27, 2022, indicating his presence is required at a business meeting in Singapore and Dubai.
Permitting him to travel abroad the high court quashed the trial court order and imposed the following conditions on the petitioner:
(i) He will return to India on or before 20.01.2023 and he will furnish adequate surety and bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lakh to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for ensuring his return from abroad and appearance before the court.
(ii) The petitioner will put appearance before the Trial Court on his return to India.
(iii) The petitioner shall not visit any other country except Singapore and Dubai, for which permission to travel abroad has been granted by this court.
(iv) The petitioner will carry his mobile with an active mobile number, which he will provide through his counsel to the Trial Court after reaching Singapore and Dubai respectively, and he will keep the phone activated for international calls and he will also remain available on whatsapp application with an active internet connection.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate A.K. Gupta with Advocates Savita Nathawat, Ashutosh Bhatia, Sourabh Pratap Singh Chouhan, Anoop Meena and Gaurav Sharma
For ED: Additional Solicitor General R.D. Rastogi with Advocates Anand Sharma and Akshay Bhardwaj
Case Title: Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023)
