2026 (1) TMI 1232 - HC - Money Laundering

Permission to travel during trial granted with virtual appearance and financial surety; return required within six months.

Permission to travel during pendency of trial was addressed where acquisition of foreign citizenship did not, by itself, render the accused a flight risk; ... Permission to travel during pendency of trial - effect of stayed/paused proceedings on personal attendance - acquisition of foreign citizenship by accused - Change of citizenship and custody of process - Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - trial by video conferencing and electronic mode - HELD THAT:- It was noted that the petitioner had not committed any default concerning the conditions imposed by the Court allowing him to travel and stay in Canada, but his act of moving repeated applications seeking extension of stay there was taken exception to while dismissing the application. It is a fact not disputed that during his stay there he has been regularly appearing before the Special Court through video conferencing, with his counsel appearing physically without fail. It has also been noted by the Special Court that the petitioner has not “committed any default concerning the conditions imposed” by the Court while permitting him to travel and stay abroad. His bona fides are thus not in dispute, nor can he be termed a flight risk only because he has accepted the Canadian citizenship, as notwithstanding this changed status, he has not breached any direction of the Court. The ED on its part has failed to produce any material which can indicate even prima facie that there is any apprehension of his fleeing the course of justice. And there have been precedents permitting the accused who acquire foreign citizenship during pendency of the case, to travel abroad refer Srichand P. Hinduja [2001 (5) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of these peculiarities, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to travel to Canada and stay there for a period of six months, with a direction to return to India on or before 31.07.2026, subject to furnishing adequate surety and bank guarantee of ₹1 crore to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Upon the petitioner’s return to India, the surety bond(s) and bank guarantee will be discharged/released. During his stay in Canada, he shall appear before the Court virtually and his counsel shall be physically present on every date of hearing. Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel to and stay in Canada for six months during the pendency of the complaint, subject to conditions.Analysis: Proceedings in the underlying complaint remain paused pending filing of the final report in the predicate offence; petitioner previously obtained court permission for foreign travel and complied with the direction to return when an extension was refused. The petitioner acquired foreign citizenship but consistently participated in hearings through video conferencing while counsel attended physically. Applicable legal framework includes provisions permitting trial or proceedings by electronic/video means and rules allowing dispensation of personal attendance; conditions such as furnishing adequate surety and a bank guarantee are established mechanisms to secure attendance. No material was produced to show a prima facie risk of absconding or contempt of court conditions, and precedents permit travel where safeguards are in place.Conclusion: Permission to travel to and stay in Canada for six months is allowed, subject to furnishing adequate surety and a bank guarantee of 1 crore to the satisfaction of the trial court, virtual appearance during stay, and forfeiture and coercive measures in case of non-compliance.