Travel permission can be refused in serious fraud probes where foreign assets and flight risk outweigh personal convenience.

Discretionary travel relief may be refused during an ongoing serious fraud investigation where the Court finds a prima facie foreign financial base, incomplete disclosure of assets, and a real risk of non-return. In assessing whether to suspend a Look Out Circular and permit overseas travel, the Court treated the stage and seriousness of the SFIO inquiry, the possibility of interference with investigation and trial, and the need to protect national and economic interest as overriding individual convenience. Earlier permissions in other proceedings were not treated as determinative on these facts, and the writ petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of the Look Out Circular and permission to travel abroad for attending family events during pendency of an ongoing fraud investigation.

Analysis: The petition arose from an ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of companies under the Companies Act, 2013 involving allegations of fraud, misappropriation, diversion of funds and wider public interest. The record indicated that the petitioner had earlier held positions of control in the concerned companies, had prima facie foreign assets and shareholdings, and had not made a full or convincing disclosure regarding his assets and financial base. The Court also considered the stage and magnitude of the investigation, the possibility that foreign travel could impede the investigation and future trial, and the need to give priority to national and economic interest over individual convenience. The existence of permissions granted in other proceedings was held not to be determinative on the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the requested travel relief, and the refusal to suspend the Look Out Circular was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected as the Court found a sufficient basis to treat the petitioner as a potential flight risk and to prefer the larger public interest in an ongoing serious fraud investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case involving an ongoing serious economic fraud investigation, discretionary permission to travel abroad may be refused where the Court finds a prima facie foreign financial base, incomplete disclosure of assets, and a real risk that the person may not return to face investigation or trial, with national and economic interest outweighing individual convenience.

---