Foreign Medical Treatment Preference No Ground for PMLA Accused Travel: Chhattisgarh HC

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has underscored that the fundamental right to travel abroad is not absolute, especially when an accused is facing trial for serious economic offences. In a recent judgment, the court dismissed a plea filed by Sunil Kumar Agrawal, a prominent businessman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, who sought permission to travel to Abu Dhabi for specialized medical treatment.

Case Background Sunil Kumar Agrawal is an accused in a high-profile case involving alleged illegal extortion in coal transportation, where he is accused of money laundering and holding "benami" properties for his close associate, Suryakant Tiwari. While currently on interim bail granted by the Supreme Court, Agrawal filed an application before the Special Court in Raipur, seeking permission to travel to the UAE to undergo "Khan Kinetic Treatment" (KKT) for an injury to his left thigh.

Upon the rejection of his application by the Special Judge, Agrawal moved the High Court, asserting that the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Conflict of Interests The petitioner argued that his medical condition—a chronic musculoskeletal condition—required specific KKT technology not available in India. He maintained that he has consistently complied with bail conditions and has "deep roots in society," posing no flight risk.

Conversely, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) contended that the medical records provided were insufficient and no qualified medical board had recommended KKT therapy as the only viable option. The respondent argued that the petitioner has a history of leveraging medical grounds for personal convenience and that, given the gravity of the financial crimes alleged, he poses a significant flight risk. The ED warned that allowing the accused to leave the country could stall the ongoing trial, which involves several other co-accused, including high-ranking public servants.

Legal Analysis Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, presiding over the case, clarified that while the right to travel is a valuable personal liberty, it must be balanced against the state's paramount interest in the administration of criminal justice. The court held that an accused must establish a "genuine medical necessity" that outweighs the risks associated with the prosecution’s progress.

The court observed that the petitioner offered no objective, expert-backed evidence proving that equivalent treatment is unavailable in India. Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Seesa Santosh vs. The State of Telangana , the High Court emphasized that medical facilities within India are world-class and that "personal preference cannot be equated with absolute medical necessity."

Key Observations The judgment draws a sharp line regarding the obligations of those accused of serious crimes:

• "The medical infrastructure within India possesses world-class expertise, state-of-the-art diagnostic tools, and therapeutic facilities capable of treating the petitioner's condition. The choice of an accused to be treated in a specific foreign country cannot override the mandate of law when equivalent medical treatment is readily accessible domestically."
• "The petitioner’s prayer has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court... whether the facilities which the petitioner intend to take are available in India or not, [has not been established]."
• "The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner poses a potent flight risk is, therefore, neither imaginary nor illusory, but a well-founded probability."

Final Decision The Chhattisgarh High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an exceptional medical exigency that would justify granting permission to travel abroad. The court held that the trial's need for the physical presence of the accused, combined with the substantial risk of him evading the judicial process, warranted the dismissal of the petition.

This ruling reinforces a stricter judicial approach toward accused persons in high-stakes economic cases, affirming that foreign medical travel is a privilege subject to rigorous scrutiny rather than an unrestricted right. The case serves as a precedent for trial courts in balancing humanitarian medical pleas against the necessity of ensuring a speedy and uninterrupted trial in complex criminal proceedings.