Foreign-travel restriction relaxed under PMLA where summons compliance and liberty concerns outweighed rigid permission conditions

A foreign-travel restriction under the PMLA was modified because the applicant had appeared bona fide in response to summons, had not been arrested under Section 19, and had already been subject to an earlier Section 88 CrPC order. The Court accepted that repeated destination-specific prior permission would unduly burden professional travel and unnecessarily impede personal liberty. Objections based on flight risk, evidence tampering, and comparison with fugitive cases were not accepted on these facts. The applicant was allowed to travel abroad during trial, subject to additional safeguards to secure attendance and the integrity of proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition restricting the applicant's foreign travel deserved deletion or modification, and whether the applicant could be permitted to travel abroad without repeated prior permission for each trip and destination.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the applicant's earlier bona fide appearance pursuant to summons, the fact that he had not been arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, and the Court's earlier order under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The reasoning accepted that the applicant's professional obligations required frequent and sometimes extended international travel, and that a rigid destination-specific permission regime created undue hardship and could impede the exercise of personal liberty. The objections based on flight risk, tampering with evidence, and analogy with other fugitive cases were not accepted in the applicant's case, particularly because the enforcement agency had not previously arrested him or challenged the earlier order. Reliance was placed on the principle that conditions cannot be imposed in a manner that unnecessarily burdens liberty where the accused was not arrested under Section 19 and had appeared in response to process.

Conclusion: The restrictive travel condition was modified in the applicant's favour, and he was permitted to travel abroad during the pendency of trial without the impugned embargo, subject to the additional safeguards imposed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The order grants relief by relaxing the foreign-travel restriction while preserving attendance and trial-related safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has not been arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and has bona fide appeared before the Court in response to summons, travel restrictions may be modified so that they do not unnecessarily impede personal liberty, provided the trial remains safeguarded by appropriate conditions.

---