Court holds right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21; permits four-day official trip to Thailand subject to safeguards including deposit of property documents and suspension of Look Out Circular
In a significant judgment dated October 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted permission to Mr. Harinder Dahiya, a Senior Director of Finance and Accounts at Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, to travel abroad despite being an accused in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. The Court recognized the fundamental right to travel abroad as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and held that any restrictions imposed must be reasonable, proportionate, and aimed at securing the accused's presence during trial rather than imposing an absolute ban.
Mr. Dahiya had sought permission to visit Bangkok, Thailand from October 12 to October 15, 2026, for official meetings related to statutory audits, litigation, and strategic business planning for his employer. His passport was deposited with the trial court following his arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA on December 21, 2023, which was later quashed as illegal by the learned Vacation Judge. Subsequently, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was imposed to prevent foreign travel without court permission.
The petitioner's counsel emphasized his client's unblemished compliance record, having appeared before the Enforcement Directorate on 139 occasions and possessing strong roots in India, including family, home, employment, and immovable assets. Opposing the application, the Enforcement Directorate argued that the petitioner's role as Chief Financial Officer was central to the alleged money laundering involving over Rs. 20,000 crores and that virtual attendance at meetings was feasible.
Rejecting the absolute restraint on travel, the Court referred to precedents such as Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, underscoring that conditions on travel must be proportionate and designed to secure the accused's presence. The Court distinguished Mr. Dahiya's case from that of a co-accused foreign national whose travel request was denied due to lack of an extradition treaty and foreign nationality.
Permitting the travel, the Court imposed several conditions to safeguard the interests of justice. Mr. Dahiya must furnish an undertaking to return by October 15, deposit original title documents of his unencumbered immovable properties along with an affidavit affirming no third-party encumbrances, provide detailed itinerary and contact information, notify his return within 24 hours, re-deposit his passport, and refrain from contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence. The LOC will be suspended only for the travel period and will automatically revive thereafter.
This judgment reaffirms the delicate balance courts must maintain between protecting constitutional liberties and ensuring effective criminal prosecution in complex financial crimes. It also offers a roadmap for accused persons seeking limited foreign travel during ongoing investigations, subject to stringent safeguards.
Bottom Line:
Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be curtailed by imposing disproportionate conditions; in a PMLA case, an Indian accused with unblemished compliance, roots in India and short-duration official travel may be permitted to travel abroad subject to safeguards such as undertaking, deposit of title documents, itinerary disclosure, re-deposit of passport and temporary suspension of LOC.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Sections 19 and related procedural provisions)
Harinder Dahiya v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992755
