Rajasthan High Court Permits Foreign Travel Under Section 482 CrPC Amidst Pending PMLA Proceedings - 2026-05-27

Bridging Liberty and Justice: Rajasthan High Court Grants Overseas Travel Relief in PMLA Case

In a significant ruling concerning the intersection of fundamental rights and ongoing criminal proceedings, the Rajasthan High Court has granted permission to Ashutosh Bajoria, an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), to travel abroad for business purposes. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, underscores the judicial principle of balancing an individual's right to movement with the state's interest in ensuring participation in a trial.

The Backdrop: A Legal Tug-of-War

The case stems from a criminal complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement in 2021, alleging offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. Following the issuance of arrest warrants and subsequent litigation, the petitioner was granted bail by the High Court in June 2022, subject to the condition that he would not leave India without prior judicial permission.

Trouble arose when the petitioner sought to travel to Singapore and Dubai for business meetings. The Trial Court initially rejected the plea, citing a lack of documented proof. The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, asserting that his livelihood and business obligations necessitated international travel.

Arguments: Business Necessity vs. Flight Risk

The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. To bolster this, the defense provided letters from international business entities confirming the necessity of Mr. Bajoria’s presence for specific meetings. The petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit heavy surety and a bank guarantee to ensure his return and participation in the ongoing trial.

Conversely, the respondent (Directorate of Enforcement) strongly opposed the departure. They contended that the petitioner had previously been declared an absconder and that allowing travel might lead to him fleeing the jurisdiction, effectively obstructing the PMLA proceedings.

The Judicial Reasoning: Aligning Precedent with Reality

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that while it is vital to prevent the accused from evading justice, the right to travel is a basic human right. Relying on the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India , the Court reiterated that "personal liberty" has a wide amplitude.

The Court clarified that the judgment cited by the State in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustin Pinto was inapplicable to the present circumstances. The High Court found that a balance could be struck by imposing stringent conditions rather than an outright prohibition on travel.

Key Observations

The judgment features several critical observations regarding the sanctity of personal liberty:

• "The expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad."
• "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual."
• "This court is required to draw a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the prosecution to duly prosecute the petitioner so as to prevent him from evading the trial."
• "For ensuring the presence of the accused before the Trial Court, any appropriate condition can be imposed and in case the condition imposed by law is violated, appropriate coercive action can be taken."

The Verdict: Conditional Clearance

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the Trial Court's rejection order, granting Mr. Bajoria permission to travel to Singapore and Dubai until January 19, 2023. This liberty, however, comes with strict conditions:

1. Financial Security: The petitioner must furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lakh to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
2. Strict Return: He must return to India by January 20, 2023, and appear before the Trial Court immediately.
3. Restricted Itinerary: Travel is limited exclusively to Singapore and Dubai.
4. Digital Vigilance: The petitioner is required to keep a mobile number active for international calls and remain available on WhatsApp, ensuring constant communication with the authorities.

The Court made it clear that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the immediate forfeiture of the bank guarantee and allow the Trial Court to proceed against the petitioner as per the law. This ruling serves as a reminder that even in complex regulatory and criminal environments like those governed by the PMLA, the judicial system remains committed to preserving an individual’s fundamental freedoms, provided that the integrity of the judicial process remains protected.