Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA No. 1/2026 & IA No. 3/2026 in
CC no. 40/2025 & CT No. 2/2025
State & ED vs. Rajendran Nair & Ors.
20.03.2026
ORDER
1. This common order will decide the two applications
filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Rajendran Keezhedath
Nair for grant of permission to travel abroad and release the
passport.
Case of the applicant/accused:
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused argued that
the purpose of travel of the applicant/accused is bona fide; that
the applicant/accused has deep roots in the society, and that he is
willing to comply with conditions imposed by the Court. It is
further argued that the applicant/accused has cooperated in
investigation and has not violated any previous conditions.
Therefore, he has requested that he be allowed to travel abroad.
3. He also argued that the applicant/accused runs a
chain of 7 restaurants and food courts in Moscow, Russia namely
‘Darbar’ and that his presence is important to renew his business
argeement, licenses and also to comply with the tax formalities
of Russian Government. He submitted that the Manager of the
Company has sent a letter explaining the necessity of physical
appearance of applicant/accused. He further argued that the wife
of applicant/accused is a homemaker, and she is not able to
manage the business alone, thus, it is at the brink of closure due
to his absence.
Contd….2/-
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
Objections of the State:
4. Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that
investigation is still pending with respect to the present case and
that permitting the applicant/accused to travel would delay the
trial proceeding. He also argued that the applicant/accused may
not return back to India.
Objection of the ED:
5. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the Directorate of
Enforcement argued that the order dated 03.11.2025 was passed
in FIR No. 10/2022 P.S. ACB permitting the applicant/accused to
travel abroad subject to certain conditions but the said order
dated 03.11.2025 was never communicated to the Directorate of
Enforcement prior to the date of the applicant’s proposed travel.
He further submitted that the applicant/accused was prevented to
board the flight by the Immigration Authorities in pursuance of a
Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the ED in the ongoing case
which is within the mandate of ensuring the presence of the
applicant during the investigation as the amount involved in the
matter is very huge.
6. He also argued that the letter placed by
applicant/accused which is received from the internal team of his
restaurant regarding his immediate presence in Moscow can be
misleading to evade from this country and that he has not
placed any credible evidence to substantiate the necessity of his
Contd...3/-
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
proposed travel. He has vehemently opposed the application on
the ground that the applicant/accused has business in Russia and
his wife and family also reside in Russia, thus, he has substantial
financial resources and connections in Russia creating a real and
reasonable apprehension that he may abscond or not return,
thereby frustrating the entire trial. He also argued that the
offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
are serious economic offences with far-reaching societal impact,
and courts are required to impose stricter standards while
adjudicating requests involving liberty to travel abroad. He has,
therefore, requested that the application be dismissed.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused,
Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the Ld. Special
Public Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate and have
carefully perused the record.
Examination and Analysis:
8. It is trite law that every person including accused
persons have a right to travel abroad, however, the said right is
not absolute. The said right can be curtailed and the restrictions
can be justified if there is an apprehension that the accused may
flee from justice and not subject himself to the jurisdiction of the
court. It cannot be denied that in matters concerning economic
offences, the likelihood of the accused evading trial must be
assessed with greater caution.
Contd…….4/-
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
9. In the present case, the record reveals that an earlier
application of the accused to travel abroad was dismissed vide
order dated 14.11.2025. As per record, the accused has not filed
any appeal against the said order and thus, the order dated
14.11.2025 stands unchallenged. The accused has also not
demonstrated any change of circumstance since the dismissal of
his previous application. It is an admitted position on behalf of
the accused/applicant that he has considerable foreign ties,
including business interests and family, thereby lending
credibility to the apprehension that he may not return to India.
10. The main object of the applicant/accused to travel to
Russia is to renew his business license, however, it has been
observed in the last order that he had submitted that on earlier
occasions, his wife had got the licenses renewed. The previous
application was also dismissed on the ground that his wife had
been taking care of his business and she could continue to do so
and it was observed that the presence of the applicant/ accused
did not seem imperative. It was also observed that no material
was placed on record by the applicant/accused to demonstrate
that the licenses cannot be renewed by his wife.
11. Therefore, considering the gravity of allegations,
which pertain to laundering of proceeds of crime amounting to
approximately Rs. 13.29 Crores, presence of the
applicant/accused within India is indispensable. Further,
considering that the applicant/accused has his business and
Contd….5/-
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
family in Russia, it makes it highly likely that he may not return
to India to face the trial.
Conclusion:
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering
the seriousness of the allegations, and the real possibility of the
applicant/accused not returning to India, this Court finds no
ground to grant permission to travel abroad. Therefore, the two
applications filed by the applicant/accused seeking permission to
travel abroad and release the passport are dismissed.
Both the applications are accordingly disposed off.
Both the files be tagged with the main file.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi/20.03.2026
-- 5 of 5 --