Back
Trumps Travel Rights: Calcutta HC Backs 's LOC in Massive Pharma Fraud Case
In a ruling emphasizing India's economic interests over an individual's right to travel, the has dismissed a challenging a issued against Debanjan Hazra, a former employee linked to the scandal. Justice Krishna Rao upheld the LOC, finding sufficient grounds in Hazra's alleged role in siphoning ₹215 crore, his non-cooperation with investigators, and his permanent settlement in China.
From Kolkata Chemist to China Resident: The Road to Airport Detention
Debanjan Hazra, a chemist by training, joined as an Assistant Manager in 2006 and worked with group entities until 2009. In 2013, he relocated to China for better opportunities, eventually settling there with a Chinese spouse and two children. He visits Kolkata annually to see his aging parents.
Elder Pharmaceuticals, a listed pharma firm tightly controlled by promoters, collapsed amid allegations of mismanagement. The ordered its winding-up after reports revealed ₹1,300 crore siphoned off, leaving 23,946 public deposit holders unpaid to the tune of ₹176.59 crore. The directed an probe under .
Hazra was flagged as a close promoter associate and sole shareholder of AD Global EOOD, a foreign entity that allegedly acquired Elder's overseas subsidiaries (in the UK and Bulgaria) for negligible value after ₹215 crore in unsecured loans were routed through Dubai-based Elder International FZCO and written off. Despite leaving Elder in 2009, email records showed his involvement until 2016.
On , en route from Kolkata to a Bangladesh conference (and onward to China), Hazra was stopped at NSCBI Airport due to the LOC. He signed an undertaking, appeared for questioning on December 22, but failed to submit promised documents.
Petitioner's Freedom Flight vs. 's Fraud Net
Hazra argued the LOC violated the 's dated , requiring or exceptional threats to sovereignty, security, or economic interests for detention. As a mere employee uninvolved post-2009, no offence was made out against him. He cited Mritunjay Singh v. Union of India (2022 (3) CHN (Cal) 1), limiting LOCs to evasion cases, and Vishambhar Saran v. (2021 SCC OnLine Cal 3074), rejecting knee-jerk LOCs on mere defaults.
The Union, via , countered with investigation findings: Hazra ignored summons to his Indian address and email (acknowledged in Bangkok, ), skipped agency contact despite India visits, and assured but withheld key documents post-detention. With the report submitted , awaiting prosecution directions, Hazra's China base posed a clear . The LOC invoked OM Clause (L) for protecting " ."
Distinguishing Precedents: Why This Fraud Case Stands Apart
Justice Rao dissected the cited cases, noting Mritunjay Singh inapplicable as it lacked —unlike Hazra's permanent abroad life and non-cooperation. Vishambhar Saran presumed no evasion threat, but here, post-prosecution summons under (deemed reports) could go unanswered, complicating extradition.
The court stressed LOCs under OM Clause (L) for exceptional economic threats, even pre-cognizable offence, given the probe's completion and massive public fund diversion. Reports from and corroborated the fraud scale.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The petitioner was associated with Elder Group since 2006-2007 and was also amongst the close associates of the promoter... [he] was instrumental in selling of Brunel Healthcare and Biocare Limited under the direction of Anuj Saxena despite of the fact that he was the sole owner of both entities."(Para 21)
"Inspite of receipt of summons through email, the petitioner failed to appear before the Investigating Agency. Even when the petitioner came to India, failed to meet the Investigating Agency."(Para 27)
"If the Central Government directs theto initiate prosecution... there is every chance that the petitioner will not appear before the Learned Special Court and will avoid the proceeding. It will be difficult for the Indian Government to bring the petitioner back to India."(Para 29)
"This Court did not find any justification to set aside or quash the Look Out Circular against the petitioner."(Para 30)
No Quash: LOC Stays, Prosecution Looms
The stood dismissed on . The LOC remains operative, barring Hazra's exit amid pending prosecution decisions. This reinforces that the right to travel ( ) yields to state interests in grave economic offences, especially with evasion risks. Future cases may cite this for LOC sustenance in probes, balancing individual liberty against public financial safeguards—as echoed in contemporary reports on the Elder saga.
