Petition dismissed for London medical travel as rare eye treatment available at Indian hospitals including AIIMS

The Delhi HC dismissed a petition seeking permission to travel to London for medical treatment of a rare eye condition requiring Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy. The court found that despite serious allegations against the petitioner, the requested medical treatment was widely available in India at institutions including Medanta Hospital and AIIMS. The HC upheld the trial court's reasoned order denying travel permission, noting that Section 482 Cr.PC powers should only prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process, which was not established here.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Setting aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2022.
2. Permission to travel to London for medical treatment.
3. Setting aside/suspending the Look Out Circular (LOC) dated 05.08.2019.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Setting Aside the Impugned Order Dated 11.10.2022:
The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Learned ASJ-04, Central District Court Tis Hazari, which dismissed his application to set aside the LOC and to permit travel abroad for medical treatment. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish a case to set aside the LOC and noted that the petitioner attempted to flee the country soon after the FIR registration. The Supreme Court, in a related bail matter, had directed that the petitioner would not travel abroad without the trial court's permission.

2. Permission to Travel to London for Medical Treatment:
The petitioner, a British citizen of Indian origin, sought permission to travel to London for a rare eye condition treatment. The trial court denied this request, stating no evidence was provided that the treatment could not be done in India. The petitioner argued that his condition, Keratoconus, required treatment from Dr. Mark Wilkins in London, who had previously treated him. The petitioner contended that the treatment was not available in India and that the trial court was misled by the respondent's letters from AIIMS and Medanta. The petitioner was willing to provide additional sureties, deposit passports, and share his live location while in London.

3. Setting Aside/Suspending the Look Out Circular (LOC) Dated 05.08.2019:
The LOC was issued to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country due to his involvement in a money laundering case. The respondent argued that the petitioner, being a British citizen, posed a flight risk and had several properties abroad. The trial court's decision to uphold the LOC was supported by the respondent's argument that the petitioner tried to flee the country shortly after the FIR was registered. The respondent also cited multiple pending FIRs against the petitioner and the substantial amount of money involved in the alleged fraud.

Court's Observations and Judgment:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to travel as part of personal liberty but emphasized the need to balance this right with the prosecuting agency's interests. The court noted previous judgments, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, which affirmed the right to travel. However, in cases involving serious allegations, the court must ensure the accused's presence for trial.

The court referred to similar cases where travel for medical treatment was denied if the treatment was available in India. The court found that "Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy," the treatment sought by the petitioner, was available in India, as confirmed by AIIMS and Medanta Hospital.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner's previous attempt to leave the country, and the availability of the required medical treatment in India, the court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order. The petition was dismissed, and the trial court's decision was upheld.

Conclusion:
The petition to set aside the impugned order, permit travel to London for medical treatment, and suspend the LOC was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the availability of the required medical treatment in India and the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner.

---