The right to travel abroad is included under Article 21 of the Constitution, protecting even foreign nationals facing trial from undue restrictions.

ORDER :

N. Seshasayee, J.

The petitioner herein is the director of A2, a registered company in C.C. No. 554 of 2023, now pending for framing of charges before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. He is aged about 35 years and is a citizen of Seychelles, an east African country. He is stuck in India following a LOC issued by the CBI.

2. The petitioner was barely married for about a year, and was working in Singapore when he was implicated in this case. His parents are Indian citizens who reside in Malaysia, and his wife is a Malaysian citizen who continues to reside there.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner seeks the leave of this Court to visit his parents between 11.09.2024 and 11.10.2024 in Malaysia. He has pleaded that:

a) Recently his father was assaulted, abducted and was robbed, in consequence of which the mental and physical health of his parents had deteriorated. Though appropriate criminal proceedings have been initiated against the assailants, the petitioner could not assist his father in initiating the criminal proceedings as he was forced to remain in India, fettered by the LOC. He therefore, seeks the leave of the Court to visit his family in Malaysia between the aforesaid dates.

b) On two earlier occasions, the petitioner had been granted leave by this court to temporarily leave India vide Order of this Court in W.P.15517 of 2023, dated 04.08.2023 and in W.P.28915 of 2023, dated 07.11.2023

c) In Maneka Gandhi case [ AIR 1978 SC 597 ], the line of demarcation separating Articles 19 and 21 has been erased, and right to travel abroad has been read as a fundamental right and that even though he is a citizen of Seychelles, he is entitled to right to dignified life under Article 21 and hence he may be permitted to travel abroad.

He has also given an undertaking that he would return to India and abide by such conditions which this court may impose.

4. The learned Prosecutor for CBI has filed his counter wherein it is alleged:

(a)That the petitioner's company Broadcourt Investments Ltd., was involved in a large scale financial scam wherein the petitioner as its erstwhile Director had played a key role in diverting the loan sanctioned by the IDBI bank in favour of M/s Axel Sunshine Limted (A1), to aid the closure of a loan advanced to M/s WinWind Oy (arrayed as A7 in the aforesaid C.C.) by the same bank which has since been declared NPA. This diversion has resulted in a loss of Rs. 600 crores to the IDBI bank. He is a nephew of A12, who acted as the mastermind behind the diversion of the loan sanctioned by the IDBI bank to A1 company.

(b) Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be expanded to include cases like that of the petitioner especially when the LOC was issued pursuant to such a huge economic fraud. If the petitioner is allowed to leave the country, there is a good chance that he will not return to India to comply with the formalities of investigation and to submit to the authority of the Courts, resulting in the loss of Rs. 600 crores to the public at large. Therefore, the petitioner should not be permitted to leave the country.

5. Heard both sides. They stuck to their line of pleadings in their arguments. Should the petitioner be given the leave to travel abroad? Is it a case of , 'To be or not to be', but still not a Shakespearean dilemma, as the Constitution shows the way to this court for resolving it.

6. The investigation is now complete and the final report of the investigating agency has been laid before the Court. From now onwards, more than the CBI, the concern will b