Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 156

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Sarkar, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Debanjan Hazra - Appellant
Vs.
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors. - Respondent
MAT 474 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Datta, Adv., Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Sharma, Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Majumdar, Adv.

A travel restraint is a coercive measure to secure judicial attendance; it cannot be maintained based on speculative flight risk after an investigation concludes without pending prosecution, as such indefinite restriction violates the constitutional right to personal liberty and fails the proportionality test.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel as integral facet of personal liberty - Reasonable restriction - Proportionality test - Issuance of travel restraint - Personal liberty cannot be curtailed on speculative grounds or in absence of pending judicial proceedings. (Paras 24, 25, 31)

(B) Corporate Law - Investigation into affairs of entity - Travel restraint - Guidelines - Cognizable offence - Deliberate evasion - Mere completion of investigation without initiating prosecution does not justify indefinite travel ban - Balance between economic interest of nation and individual liberty. (Paras 14, 15, 23, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a professional residing abroad, filed an appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking to quash a travel restraint issued at the request of an investigative body probing financial irregularities in a corporate entity. The appellant contended that the investigation was concluded, no formal criminal proceedings were pending, and the restraint remained an arbitrary, indefinite restriction on his liberty. The investigative body argued that the appellant's past association with the entity, his non-cooperation, and the gravity of the financial fraud justified the restraint, citing the potential risk of evasion of future legal process.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the continuation of the restraint was unsustainable as the investigation had already concluded and no court proceedings were pending. The apprehension of the authorities that the individual might evade trial in the future was deemed speculative and insufficient for restricting fundamental rights.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the conditions for issuing a travel restraint existed, whether the restriction was legally sustainable after the completion of an investigation without pending prosecution, and whether such restraint violated the constitutional right to personal liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: A travel restraint is a coercive measure aimed at securing an individual’s presence before an agency or court; it cannot be justified by speculative apprehensions of flight risk where no prosecution is pending. Restrictions on the right to travel must satisfy the test of reasonableness and proportionality. Once an investigation is effectively concluded, the indefinite continuation of a travel ban without active legal proceedings constitutes an arbitrary infringement of personal liberty.

Result: The appeal is allowed; the impugned travel restraint is quashed, subject to the filing of specific undertakings regarding future cooperation and availability for court proceedings.

Table of Content
1. overview of the procedural history and factual background of the loc issuance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of conflicting arguments regarding the justification and necessity of maintaining a look out circular. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. analysis of mha guidelines and sfio powers in issuing locs. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. right to travel and proportionality threshold for coercive measures. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. quashing of the loc due to absence of pending legal proceedings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

Judgment :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPA2772 of 2026.

2. The learned Single Judge, rejected the prayer for setting aside and/or quashing the Look Out Circular (in short ‘LOC’) issued in respect of the appellant, upon request by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short SFIO).

3. The case run by the appellant in the writ petition was that, he is a citizen of India, but a non-resident and a chemist by profession. He had been appointed as an Assistant Manager at Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Elder’). He continued in such post till 2009. Thereafter, he was employed with Cell Life Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., Cerberus Venture Pvt. Ltd., AR Printing and Packaging Pvt. Ltd., AR Printpack Ltd. and Stone Sapphire Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2013, he left India and moved to China. He joined Shanghai Shitai Co. Ltd. He eventually joined AD Global Limited in 2014 in Shanghai, and ever since then, he had been employed with the said company. He married a Chinese national and has two children. His elderly parents reside in Kolkata, and he frequently visits them. On 15th December, 2025, he along with his wife and children, came to Kolkata to meet his aged parents. On 21st December, 2025, when he was proceeding to Bangladesh to attend a conference from NSCB International Airport, Kolkata, the immigration authorities cancelled his boarding pass and ticket, and did not allow him to go to Bangladesh. He was asked to meet the higher officials of the Bureau of Immigration at the airport and upon meeting the officials, he came to know that a LOC had been issued against him on 7th February, 2025, in connection with the investigation into the affairs of Elder. The appellant was allowed to leave the Airport only after signing an “undertaking” and a “request for appearance” at the office of the respondent no. 1. The appellant appeared in the office of the respondent No. 1 on 22nd December, 2025. He was informed that summons had been issued on January 14, 2025 in exercise of power under the Companies Act, 2013. His statement was recorded in the presence of the investigation officer. The entire exercise of recording the statement commenced at 10:03 am and continued till 10:30 pm. He produced some documents as asked, but those were not retained by the authorities. He was made to sign, execute and submit three documents. He answered all the questions and undertook to submit necessary documents, if called for. He made a representation for withdrawal of the circular, but the same went unheeded. Being an expert in the field of Research and Development in oncology, he got a better opportunity in China and had been working in China since 2013. He was merely an employee of Elder and had left such employment in 2009. The involvement of Elder in the alleged fraudulent business and mismanagement, was at a later date when the appellant was no longer with Elder. He did not hold any key managerial position at Elder. He had been unnecessarily detained in India despite his innocence and separated from his family. His life and livelihood were jeopardized and his liberty was wrongly curtailed. Thus, the writ petition was filed with the following prayers:-

“a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents,