Right to travel abroad under Article 21 prevails absent specific risk material; LOC suspension allowed with safeguards.

Foreign travel restrictions and Look Out Circulars cannot be sustained without specific material showing a real risk of misuse or obstruction of proceedings. The Delhi HC treated the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 and noted that the objections raised were generic and unsupported by particulars. Finding no material that the petitioners had abused earlier concessions or hampered the case, the Court allowed suspension of the LOCs and permission to travel abroad, subject to conditions including reporting obligations, an indemnity bond, an FDR and other travel restraints to balance the competing interests.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Look Out Circulars should be suspended and permission to travel abroad should be granted to the petitioners.

Analysis: The request was examined in the light of the existing orders of the Special Judge and the earlier closure or suspension of the LOCs at the instance of the investigating agencies. The objections raised by the bank were found to be generic and unsupported by particulars. The Court also noted that no material had been shown to establish that the petitioners had attempted to misuse earlier concessions or hamper the proceedings. The right to travel was treated as an integral facet of the right to life, and the travel sought was considered for stated personal reasons. Conditions similar to those already imposed in related proceedings were found sufficient to balance the competing interests.

Conclusion: The prayer for suspension of the LOCs and permission to travel abroad was allowed, subject to conditions including travel restrictions, reporting obligations, an indemnity bond, and an FDR.

Ratio Decidendi: Restrictions on foreign travel cannot be sustained in the absence of specific material showing a real risk of misuse, and the right to travel forms part of the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

---