Travel abroad restrictions during an active criminal investigation may stand where flight risk outweighs personal liberty concerns.

Permission to travel abroad was refused where a pending criminal investigation and a Look Out Circular were in force, because the Court treated the risk of evasion as overriding the request on the facts. It distinguished the precedent relied on for removal of Look Out Circular restraints, noting that an active investigation and a serious financial scam justified continued travel restriction even though the accused had earlier cooperated. The plea based on personal liberty was not accepted as controlling in the circumstances, and the challenge to the refusal of permission failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisionist was entitled to permission to travel abroad despite the pending criminal investigation and the Look Out Circular.

Analysis: The request was considered in the context of a serious financial scam, an ongoing investigation, and the apprehension that the accused might evade process if allowed to leave the country. The Court distinguished the relied-upon precedent on Look Out Circulars, noting that the present case involved an active investigation and that prior cooperation did not eliminate the possibility of flight risk. The claim based on personal liberty was not accepted as overriding the investigative concern in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The revisionist was not entitled to travel abroad, and the challenge to the refusal of permission failed.

---