The right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, and restrictions may only be imposed with justifiable reasons.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.C. No. 1/2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for PMLA Cases (SPE/CBI-III), Ernakulam (‘Special Court’, for short), which has arisen from ECIR No. KCZ/08/2015, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’, for short).

2. The petitioner’s case is that, he is also an accused in C.C. No. 4 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha (‘Vigilance Court’, for short), which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 4 20 of the Indian Penal Code . By Annexure 4 order dated 06.11.2019, the Vigilance Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for a like sum. On the basis of the predicate offence, the present crime has been registered against the petitioner. However, by Annexure 3 order dated 03.12.2024, the Special Court has enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to the condition that he should not leave India without leave of the Special Court. The petitioner is doing business abroad. Due to the said condition, he cannot go on a short trip for his business purpose. Since no condition was imposed to enlarge the petitioner in the predicate offence, the conditions imposed by the Special Court are onerous and excessive. The Special Court has failed to consider the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office ( 2024 KLT (Online) 1653 ), holding that once a complaint is filed under 4(1) of the P.M.L.A Act, the provisions of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. Therefore, the bail conditions imposed in Annexure 3 are unjustifiable. Hence, the conditions in Annexure 3 may be set aside, and the petitioner may be permitted to travel abroad. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the Special Court is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on an accused to ensure that he participates in the trial and does not flee from justice. There is no illegality or error in Annexure A3 order. Hence, Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention in the Crl.M.C. He relies on the decision in the Tarsem Lal’s case in support of his contentions. He states that the petitioner does not have any intention to flee from justice. Instead, he is also willing to appear before the Special Court as and when directed and file an application to avail the electronic video linkage as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 (‘Rules’, for short), so that the trial goes on unhindered. There is no justification on the part of the Special Court to have imposed the above condition, especially when the Vigilance Court has not imposed any condition.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that, the conditions imposed in Annexure A3 order are not onerous. It is only to restrain the petitioner from fleeing from justice that the said conditions have been imposed. The petitioner can very well file an application for permanent exemption and also seek to avail the electronic video linkage facility so that the trial case can go on.

7. Admittedly, by the Annexure A4 order, the Vigilance Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail by directing the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. There is no o