Mumbai: While for most businessmen, their journey to attend conferences at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, began in boardrooms across the globe, for Farid Hamid Sama, an accused in the “mammoth” Rs 4,733 crore Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) fraud case, his journey to a conference in the Alpine city began in a high-security courtroom. On Jan 19, 2026, a special court granted Sama, out on bail, permission to swap his “flight risk” status for a business suit in the Swiss Alps to attend a conference from Jan 20 to 27.In the city’s courts, especially those dealing with financial frauds, such pleas find a place of dominance. In one courtroom dealing with money laundering and related cases, out of the 46 orders passed by the judge since Jan 1 this year, about 12 involved the accused’s travel itineraries. Similarly, in financial frauds predominantly probed by CBI, out of 69 orders, 17 pleas to fly abroad were allowed. In the Yes Bank case itself, out of 34 orders pronounced in 2025, around 30 dealt with accused seeking permission to fly to places such as New Zealand, Turkey and Scotland citing business or pleasure or to maintain familial bonds. While the prosecution often argues that those accused of siphoning public funds should be denied permission to cross international or domestic borders, the court in Sama’s case—which is part of a broader investigation into a fraud estimated to involve over Rs 34,000 crore—cited his professional requirements. Currently based in Dubai, Sama, who is accused number 32, was permitted to travel to Switzerland to attend a conference in Davos, followed by a business meeting in Paris, and to meet his daughter for documentation work in London. “The right to travel abroad is an aspect of fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India… No prejudice will be caused, if the applicant is permitted to travel as prayed,” the judge reasoned. The CBI mounted a strong opposition to the request, arguing that such frequent international travel by a high-profile accused could prejudice the interests of justice. The prosecution contended that the accused was beginning to treat court-granted leniency as a routine liberty rather than an exception. However, the court noted that the fundamental right to travel abroad, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed without a compelling and immediate risk. The judge also pointed out that since the trial is yet to commence and the accused has consistently adhered to previous conditions, denying the request would be an unnecessary restriction on his personal and professional life.Figures like builder Avinash Bhosale, an accused in a Yes Bank PMLA case involving Rana Kapoor, successfully modified his travel itineraries to include Dubai, Qatar, Italy and France throughout early 2026. Similarly, Ashish Agrawal, another accused in the case, secured permission for business trips to Dubai in Feb and April 2026. Business-related obligations and tourism remain primary drivers for international travel requests, as seen in the applications of accused Chandra Khandelwal, Sudarshan Roongta, and Harshvardhan Roongta, who sought extensive six-month tours covering global financial and leisure hubs like the UK, US, Singapore, and Mexico. The pleas were opposed by the prosecution on the grounds that the offence is serious as 13,000 investors are involved and there is a Rs 5,600 crore fraud related to NSEL. Travel abroad pleas typically escalate during the narrow “vacation window” of Dec-Jan for family bonding and also celebration milestones such as university graduation and weddings—albeit abroad. Fraud accused Amit Mukherjee and wife Bonhi requested a month-long visit to London to see their daughter for her graduation ceremony on Jan 20. Arun Kashyap (77), a Canadian citizen, accused of cheating Global Trust Bank sought to return to his permanent residence (since 1978) in Dubai to be with his wife. The CBI opposed the plea submitting after absconding for 17 years, the accused was arrested at Pune airport on Nov 19, 2025, following a lookout circular. The judge found substance in his contention that he was unaware of criminal proceedings pending against him. The judge imposed security of Rs 5 lakh to ensure he returns when required for framing charge and trial. While courts often grant travel permission for religious reasons, they maintain strict discretion over flight risks, this was recently highlighted by the Supreme Court’s refusal to let Indrani Mukerjea travel abroad due to concerns she miht not return.Additionally, individuals like Dwarika Prasad Singh, also accused in the NSEL scam, presented hybrid itineraries combining business with tourism across multiple regions, including Oceania and Southeast Asia, illustrating how accused persons often cite a blend of vocational necessity and personal well-being to justify the temporary suspension of their travel restrictions.The need to seek the court’s permission arises from a condition in their bail orders. The recent order concerning former HDIL promoter Sarang Kumar Wadhawan, among those accused of causing a loss of over Rs 6,000 crore to PMC Bank through their conspiracy, illustrated how spiritual and religious obligations also serve as a significant justification for travel. In his application, Wadhawan characterised his proposed domestic visits to Gujarat and Rajasthan not merely as trips, but as “sacred pilgrimages” of “profound religious significance” necessitated by his faith and devotion. Similarly, Aamir Gazdar, a businessman and accused in a Rs 200 crore money laundering case, sought a nine-day leave to travel to Saudi Arabia for the Holy Pilgrimage of Umrah. Gazdar is accused in the case allegedly involving controversial preacher Dr Zakir Naik. The consistent opposition from investigating agencies regarding international travel applications is rooted in the perceived risk to the judicial process and the gravity of the alleged crimes. Agencies frequently argue that the seriousness and scale of high-profile offences make the accused a significant flight risk, suggesting that frequent travel could be a calculated move to prejudice the interests of justice or intentionally delay trial proceedings. Beyond the risk of absconding, the prosecution often casts doubt on the genuineness of the cited reasons for travel and highlights the lack of comprehensive itineraries as a sign of vague intent.The routine objection was also made in the instance of a high profile leader. In Dec 2024, even with the prosecution strongly opposing the plea, a special court permitted National Congress Party (NCP) leader and state minister Chhagan Bhujbal, then accused in a money laundering case, to travel to the UAE, Morocco, Kenya, and Qatar on a family holiday. The court directed the ED to return his passport. “The accused was a deputy chief minister, cabinet minister and is a member of the assembly for a long period of time. He is socially and politically active in society. He has deep roots in society. There is no possibility of fleeing from justice,” the judge said. On Friday, Bhujbal was discharged from the case. The state may point to specific instances of past misconduct, asserting that any prior misuse of liberty during travel warrants a denial of future requests to ensure the accused remains within the court’s jurisdiction. In Sept last year, a special court for Sebi cases accepted the prosecution’s concerns regarding stock broker Ketan Parekh’s, who faces trial in the 2000-01 market manipulation case, potential to misuse the travel permission for unlawful activities in contravention of securities law and rejected his plea to travel abroad. Subsequently, in Nov the court granted him permission to travel to Thailand and the UAE for a total of 14 days, but only after depositing Rs 27.06 crore dues with Sebi However, the Bombay high court has set aside the order to deposit Rs 27 crore. “The right to travel abroad has been considered to be a facet of the right to life and personal liberty and, thus, cannot be subjected to unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, even when a person is facing prosecution,” the high court said. It said while the trial court can impose conditions for travel, they “ought not to be so onerous that the right to travel abroad itself is defeated”.The legal bedrock for these permissions remains the landmark 1978 Maneka Gandhi versus the Union of India case, which established that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of “personal liberty”. Recent rulings have refined this by requiring the state to provide “cogent evidence” of potential misuse before restricting movement. By imposing stringent safeguards—such as indemnity bonds, mandatory itineraries, and real-time contact updates—courts are creating a middle path. The security deposits can go up to Rs 5 lakh in some instances, but mostly are around Rs 1 lakh. With repeated requests, the earlier deposits continue unless withdrawn.But not all accused are accorded this liberty as a matter of right. In Feb 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the plea of Indrani Mukerjea, an accused in her daughter Sheena Bora murder’s case, to travel abroad during pendency of the trial. “There is no guarantee that you will come back,” the bench observed. Mukerjea sought permission to allow her to visit the UK and Spain to activate her bank accounts there and also to change her will after divorce.
