DATE: 18/11/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
FACTS:
The petitioner, a 76-year-old Overseas
Citizen of India and permanent resident of the United Kingdom, arrived in India
in December 2021. In August 2022, while attempting to return to the UK, she was
stopped at IGI Airport due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued on 13 June 2022
by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The LOC was issued pursuant
to an SFIO investigation ordered on 9 March 2022 into Net4 India Ltd. and
related family-run companies for an alleged siphoning of approximately Rs.208 crores from
Indian and foreign banks. She suffered a cardiac arrest in September 2022 and
subsequently filed writ petitions seeking permission to travel back to the UK
for medical treatment. Although initially allowed to
travel subject to strict conditions, including disclosure of bank accounts,
appointment of a competent representative, and an undertaking of
cooperation—the Court later found substantial non-compliance. She withheld bank
statements beyond two years, appointed an inexperienced representative, and
failed to furnish full details of her son, a co-accused residing abroad.
Considering her evasive conduct, the Court revoked the travel permission on 13
December 2022 and ultimately dismissed her writ petitions on 16 August 2023,
holding the LOC justified due to the gravity of the economic offences and her
lack of cooperation.
The SFIO investigation subsequently
revealed her deeper involvement in the affairs of group companies. She was
found to be a director and shareholder in subsidiaries Net4 Network Services
Ltd. (NNSL) and Pipetel Communications Pvt. Ltd., and she had signed the Master
Reseller Agreement (MRA) dated 20 October 2016 on behalf of NNSL. This
agreement diverted revenues of Net4 India Ltd. (N4IL) to NNSL without statutory
approvals or disclosures required under the Companies Act. Investigation
further indicated that this diversion amounting to roughly ₹60 crores, benefited
her family-controlled entities. It was alleged that she failed to disclose her interest in the companies despite family
involvement and concealed numerous bank accounts abroad and in India, some of
which involved substantial transactions. These findings formed the basis of her
continued LOC and the denial of permission to travel abroad while the case
remained at the cognizance stage in the trial court.
ISSUES:
The central issue was whether the
petitioner, an accused in a serious economic-offence investigation and subject
to an LOC, should be permitted to travel abroad for medical treatment. This
required examining whether her right to travel under Article 21 outweighed the
State’s apprehension of absconding, especially in light of her past
non-cooperation, concealment of bank accounts, lack of roots in India, and the
ongoing prosecution based on her alleged involvement in siphoning funds through
company transactions.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court dismissed the petition and upheld
the order dated 21 October 2024, refusing permission to travel abroad. It held
that the petitioner’s past non-compliance, concealment of crucial financial
information, availability of the required medical treatment within India, her
status as a foreign national with no roots in India, and the real risk of
absconding justified the continued operation of the LOC and denial of foreign
travel.
The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s
conduct demonstrated sustained non-cooperation, which directly undermined her
request for leniency. Previous orders from 2022 and 2023 documented that she
repeatedly failed to furnish complete bank account statements, appointed an
incapable representative, and withheld material information about her son, a
co-accused residing abroad. Investigation also showed that several bank
accounts, 33 in total were concealed and only discovered through SFIO efforts,
establishing a pattern of evasion. These findings, having attained finality,
continued to govern her credibility assessment. The Court stressed that mere
completion of investigation did not erase earlier judicial determinations
regarding her unreliability or diminish concerns of flight risk.
The Court also rejected her plea of medical
urgency. It held that while the right to medical treatment is part of Article
21, it does not automatically entitle an accused facing grave economic charges
to travel abroad, especially when equivalent treatment is available in India.
The petitioner failed to show that the MICRA AV procedure required foreign
treatment or that domestic facilities were inadequate. Citing precedents where
Courts refused foreign travel in economic-offence cases unless bona fide cooperation
was shown, the Court concluded that the balance between personal liberty and
the compelling public interest must favour ensuring the accused remains within
jurisdiction. With her co-accused son absconding, her foreign nationality,
long-standing residence abroad, and concealment of financial information, the
Court held there existed a real and continuing apprehension that she may not
return if permitted to leave the country. The petition was therefore dismissed.
ANALYSIS:
The Court’s approach in this case reflects
a consistent judicial trend in matters involving serious economic offences,
particularly where Look Out Circulars are issued to prevent flight risk.
Although the petitioner invoked her right to travel abroad for medical
treatment, a right that emanates from Article 21 the Court evaluated this claim
against the backdrop of her documented conduct, which included repeated
non-compliance with earlier court directions, concealment of bank accounts, and
failure to cooperate with the investigating agency. The Court placed substantial
weight on the petitioner’s evasive behaviour in the 2022 and 2023 proceedings,
noting that these findings had already attained finality and thus continued to
shape the assessment of her credibility. Her deep financial involvement in the
family-controlled companies, coupled with the undisclosed accounts linked to
the siphoning of significant funds, further established that she was not merely
a peripheral figure but an active participant in the transactions under
investigation. Therefore, the balance between her personal liberty and the
State’s interest in securing her presence tilted decidedly toward the latter.
Additionally, the Court’s analysis
underscores that Article 21 rights, while fundamental, are not absolute when
set against compelling public interest in prosecuting grave financial crimes.
The petitioner’s foreign nationality, permanent residence in the UK, lack of
ties to India, and an absconding co-accused family member substantially
heightened concerns of non-return. The Court also rejected any claim of
exceptional medical necessity, emphasizing that equivalent treatment was
available in India and that foreign travel cannot be justified merely on
subjective preference. Importantly, the Court reiterated that completion of
investigation does not dilute earlier judicial findings of non-cooperation or
diminish the purpose of the LOC, especially at the stage when the trial court
has only taken cognizance. The decision ultimately reinforces the principle
that in economic-offence cases—where the magnitude of alleged financial
wrongdoing is high and the accused’s conduct displays evasiveness, public
interest in ensuring the integrity of the criminal process outweighs the
asserted need to travel abroad.
info@adhwaitha.com