Order 23

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IA No. 07/26 in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.; Page 1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF DIG VINAY SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-09 (MPs/MLAs CASES), ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI.
IA No. 07/26 (Applicant/ A-3 R. N. DHOOT)
[in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.;
(Ct. Case 32/2024); U/s 3 & 4 of PMLA]
ORDER ON APPLICATION OF APPLICANT/ A-3 R. N. DHOOT
SEEKING PERMISSION TO TRAVEL ABROAD.
O R D E R
28.04.2026
Present : Counsel Mr. Sandeep S Ladda
(VC), whereas Counsel Sh.
Akshat Malpani for the applicant/A-3 R. N. Dhoot
(physically).
Mr. N. K. Matta, Ld. SPP for the DoE along with Counsel Sh.
Faizan Khan
(physically).
1. This is an application seeking permission for the applicant, A-3 R. N.
Dhoot, to travel abroad. The applicant wishes to travel to Zurich in
Europe and United Kingdom from 26.05.20226 to 13.06.2026 for the
purpose of advance medical oncology consultation and treatment of
spouse and himself. It is mentioned in the application that the applicant
and his wife, both senior citizens aged around 70 years are suffering from
multiple comorbidities and the applicant and his wife are suffering from
cancer. The applicant is suffering from Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
(CLL), alongside Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension and Cardiac
complications. His wife is also suffering from Bladder Cancer. The
treating oncologist have referred the applicant and his wife to specialised
centers located in Europe, including at Zurich. Copies of various medical
documents are attached with the application, which have been perused.
-- 1 of 6 --
2
IA No. 07/26 in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.; Page 2 of 6
2. A written reply has been filed by DoE opposing the applicant's request,
claiming that the accused cannot have an unrestricted right to travel
abroad as such travel could prejudice the trial and there are concerns
about misuse of liberty. DoE also states that the offense involves a serious
economic crime, which has been repeatedly classified as a heinous
offence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Therefore,
DoE requests that the application be disallowed.
3. On the other hand, the applicant asserts that there has been no incident of
misuse of liberty by the applicant since being released on bail. Therefore,
there is no reasonable basis for DoE to claim that the applicant might
misuse the liberty. It is also argued that once the accused is granted bail,
the claim that the applicant could be a flight risk becomes less persuasive.
Additionally, the applicant emphasizes roots in society, including being
settled in the country and having family members residing in India.
Consequently, it would be unfair to assume that the applicant would flee
the country, abandoning his family, property, business, etc. The applicant
maintains that he will not misuse the liberty in any way and is willing to
accept any conditions imposed, which he pledges to abide by strictly.
4. Various judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have now firmly
established that the right to travel abroad, even for an under-trial, is part
of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Any restriction on personal liberty must be
reasonable, fair, and just.
5. In the case of
Meneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248,
while interpreting the scope of personal liberty under Article 21, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that any restriction on personal liberty has
-- 2 of 6 --
3
IA No. 07/26 in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.; Page 3 of 6
to be fair, just, and reasonable.
6. Even an individual facing criminal charges cannot be prevented from
traveling abroad unless the prosecution presents a valid reason related to
investigation, trial, or the risk of fleeing. The personal liberty of an
accused should not be curtailed unless it is necessary for investigation or
trial purposes. The right to travel abroad is a component of the right to
personal liberty. While that right is not absolute, restrictions on it must
meet the standards of necessity and proportionality. If there is a genuine
risk of fleeing, abuse of liberty, or interference with the course of justice,
such requests can be denied. It is also well settled that restrictions cannot
be arbitrary or excessive and must be based on substantial and justifiable
reasons. Therefore, when considering such applications, the Court must
assess the reasonableness and proportionality of restricting an under-
trial’s right to travel, and may impose conditions such as sureties and
other restrictions. In this regard, if required, besides the case of Maneka
Gandhi (supra), reliance can be placed upon
Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 77 and
Tarun Trikha Vs. State of West of Bengal, (2015) SCC OnLine SC 1879;
Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836;
Priya Parameswaran Pillai Vs. Union of India, (2015) 218 DLT 621;
Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine SC 2048;
Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Ryan Augustine Pinto Crl. A. No. 1618/2019;
Parvin Juneja Vs. ED (2023) SCC OnLine Del 4803; Sanjay Grover Vs.
ED (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3237; Ruhi Arora Vs. UOI W.P. (C)
14459/2023; Suresh Nanda Vs. CBI (2011) SCC OnLine Del 4015;
Ashneer Grover Vs. UOI W.P.(C) 1430/2024 and; Dr. Prannoy Roy Vs.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
IA No. 07/26 in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.; Page 4 of 6
UOI (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3094.
7. In the present matter, the complaint under PMLA was filed without arrest
of the applicant/accused. The cognizance of the offence was taken by this
Court on 10.02.2026. The accused was thereafter admitted to bail. Till
now, right from the time when the ECIR was registered, there is no
instance of misuse of liberty by the applicant/accused in any manner
whatsoever.
8. Although the prosecution opposes this application, having reviewed the
material on record, including the fact that the complaint against the
applicant was filed without arrest, and subsequently enlarged on bail by
order dated 10.03.2026, there are no allegations of misuse of liberty so
far, therefore, the application should be allowed. The bail order includes a
condition that the applicant must seek permission from the Court to travel
abroad. It is admitted that the applicant is on bail, so it cannot be claimed
that the applicant is a flight risk. The applicant has strong ties to society.
Regarding the prosecution's concerns about the accused's availability and
the trial's progress, appropriate directions can be issued upon approval of
this application.
9. When the right to travel abroad is considered an important aspect of the
Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, there is no reason why the applicant should be deprived of that
right. I do not find it necessary to burden the present matter with detailed
facts of the case.
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the prayer to travel abroad
is also allowed and disposed of on the
following terms and conditions;
i. The applicant is permitted to travel to Zurich in Europe and
-- 4 of 6 --
5
IA No. 07/26 in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.; Page 5 of 6
United Kingdom from 26.05.20226 to 13.06.2026 for the
purposes of medical treatment of the applicant and his wife.
ii. Before leaving the country, the Applicant shall formalise his
travel itinerary for the specified period and file it on record,
including details of the places or hotels where he will stay and
his contact numbers abroad. He shall also provide a copy of
this information to the concerned IO of DoE.
iii. The applicant shall continuously keep his mobile or contact
number operational, which he shall provide to the IO so that he
can be contacted on it if needed.
iv. That he shall not request an extension of his stay abroad.
v. He shall not attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence
the witnesses in any way, nor shall he use the permission
granted to him contrary to the rules.
vi. That he shall either join the court proceedings via video
conference or be properly represented by his counsel on the
hearing dates during his absence, if any, or as otherwise
directed. He shall not challenge or dispute the proceedings
conducted in his absence, even if he appears through his
counsel, and he shall also not dispute his identity during those
proceedings.
vii. That he shall provide before this Court a Fixed Deposit Receipt
(FDR) in the amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as security for his timely
return to India.
viii. That this permission shall be subject to other applicable rules
and shall not be considered directions to any authority to act or
-- 5 of 6 --
6
IA No. 07/26 in CNR No. DLCT11-001235-2024; DoE Vs. V.N. Dhoot & Ors.; Page 6 of 6
refrain from acting, and
ix. The Applicant to provide an undertaking on properly valued
stamp paper stating that he will adhere to the above-mentioned
conditions.
x. He shall inform the Court of his return to India within 3 days
of his arrival.
11. The application bearing IA No. 7/2026 is hereby disposed of. If any
LOC is existing or in effect against the applicant at present, it shall
remain suspended during the approved travel period as mentioned above.
The necessary undertaking/FDR/itinerary be submitted before
commencing the travel. A digitally signed copy of this order be given
‘dasti’ to both parties via electronic means.
Announced in the open Court
on 28.04.2026.
(Dig Vinay Singh)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-09
(MPs/MLAs cases), RACC,
New Delhi / 28.04.2026 (r)
-- 6 of 6 --