Court cites serious economic offences and risk of flight as grounds for denial, emphasizing the availability of equivalent medical facilities within India.
In a notable decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court has denied the petition filed by Sunil Kumar Agrawal, who sought permission to travel to Abu Dhabi, UAE, for specialized medical treatment. The court, presided over by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, emphasized the gravity of the allegations against Agrawal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the risk of potential flight from prosecution.
Sunil Kumar Agrawal, a businessman implicated in serious economic offences, had approached the court to seek permission under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner argued that he required specialized treatment unavailable in India for a serious left thigh hamstring injury. He cited recommendations for undergoing Khan Kinetic Treatment (KKT) therapy at a specialized center in Abu Dhabi.
However, the court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a bona fide medical exigency that justified the need for foreign travel. The judgment highlighted that India's medical infrastructure is equipped with world-class facilities capable of addressing the petitioner’s medical condition. The court further noted the absence of any authoritative medical recommendation or evidence suggesting the necessity for treatment abroad.
The Directorate of Enforcement, representing the respondent, argued against granting the permission, citing Agrawal’s significant financial resources and international connections, which could facilitate his evasion of ongoing trial proceedings. The court concurred, underscoring the risk that allowing Agrawal to travel might result in him absconding, thereby derailing the trial and prejudicing the case against other accused individuals.
Justice Vyas, referring to several precedents, upheld the principle that the right to travel abroad is not absolute, especially in cases involving serious economic offences. The court emphasized the need to balance individual rights with the state’s interest in ensuring the continuation of the criminal trial without interruption.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's cautious stance in permitting travel for accused individuals facing serious charges, particularly when viable medical alternatives are available within the country. The court’s ruling aligns with the statutory guidelines and judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the judicial process and ensuring accountability in cases of economic offences.
Bottom line:-
Permission to travel abroad for medical treatment is not an absolute right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Courts must evaluate the nature of allegations, the risk of evading prosecution, and availability of equivalent medical facilities in India before granting such permission.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 3 & 4
Sunil Kumar Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933919
