Petitioner denied permission to travel abroad as no compelling reasons shown for foreign travel necessity

Delhi HC dismissed petitioner's application seeking interim stay of LOC and permission to travel abroad to New York and Dubai from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024. Petitioner claimed need to meet daughter in Dubai and facilitate son's admission in New York. Court held no cogent reasons provided for foreign travel, noting children could travel to India to meet parents instead. Special Judge's observation that travel purpose was unjustified was upheld. Cited judgments deemed unhelpful as fundamental travel necessity remained unestablished.

---

---

Issues:
1. Permission to travel abroad under Section 482 of Cr.PC
2. Abuse of process of law and Fundamental rights violation
3. Co-operation in investigation and flight risk assessment
4. Balance between individual rights and national interest
5. Justification for travel and reliance on legal precedents

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought permission to travel abroad under Section 482 of Cr.PC, citing the need to assist his children in higher education in New York and Dubai. The application was filed to seek interim stay of the LOC and travel from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024.

2. The petitioner argued that the travel restrictions imposed on him amounted to an abuse of process of law and violated his Fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, specifically the right to travel abroad. The delay in considering the application led to a change in travel dates.

3. The petitioner claimed to be cooperating in the investigation and posed no flight risk. He offered to provide a detailed travel itinerary and emphasized that the restrictions adversely affected his personal and professional life. The balance of convenience was argued to favor granting permission to travel.

4. The respondent contended that the petitioner's associations with various corporate entities, including overseas companies, raised concerns about financial transactions and potential flight risk. The Special Judge noted discrepancies in the petitioner's disclosures and concluded that granting permission to travel would be detrimental to the ongoing investigation and the country's economic interests.

5. Legal arguments were made regarding the necessity and justification for travel, citing past judgments related to economic offenders' flight risks. The petitioner's reliance on legal precedents was countered by the court, which found the purpose of travel insufficiently justified and dismissed the application.

6. The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner's application, noting the lack of cogent reasons for travel and the absence of sufficient justification. The court emphasized that the purpose of travel, particularly for facilitating education and family meetings, did not warrant granting permission to travel abroad.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning for dismissing the application for permission to travel abroad.

---