Personal Liberty Under Article 21 Must Be Balanced In Ensuring That Persons Accused Of Grave Economic Offences Remain Amenable To Legal Process: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition where the petitioner sought the setting aside of the order and consequential permission to travel to the United Kingdom.

The Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “This Court is conscious of the principles of personal liberty under Article 21, however, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in ensuring that persons accused of grave economic offences remain amenable to the legal process. The petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstance warranting deviation from the earlier findings of non-cooperation.”

Senior Advocate Maadhav Khurana represented the Petitioner, while CGSC Shiva Lakshmi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and UK resident, travelled to India in December 2021 and, while attempting to return to the UK in August 2022, was stopped at IGI Airport due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued pursuant to an SFIO investigation over alleged siphoning of about Rs 208 crores from Indian and foreign banks. She suffered a cardiac arrest and pursuant to that she filed a writ petition challenging the LOC and permission to travel to the UK for medical reasons. Permission was conditionally allowed subject to disclosure of bank accounts, appointment of a competent representative, and an undertaking of cooperation. Observing her lack of cooperation and risk of absconding, the High Court declined permission to travel.

Her petitions were dismissed, and the LOC was held to be justified in view of the gravity of economic offences under investigation, as well as the investigation being at an early stage. The investigation revealed that the petitioner actively held key positions in the group companies and caused wrongful loss to the creditors and stakeholders.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the petitioner’s plea for permission to travel abroad proceeded on the assumption that the mere completion of the investigation diluted the apprehension earlier expressed by this Court regarding her lack of cooperation and high flight risk. However, it was noticed that the earlier orders unequivocally recorded that despite repeated directions, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions imposed for temporary suspension of LOC, namely, furnishing complete bank statements, appointing a competent authorised representative, and providing full particulars of her son, a co-accused who continued to remain outside India. “The finding of non-cooperation was therefore not casual but based on a sustained pattern of evasiveness, and the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any material change in this regard”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the findings, which attained finality, continued to govern the assessment of her credibility and the risk of her absconding. “The petitioner cannot now selectively rely on the completion of investigation to seek relaxation of restrictions while ignoring the adverse findings regarding her past conduct”, it mentioned.

Considering that the petitioner’s son, a co-accused, remained outside India, and another accused, her husband, had expired, the Bench noted that these circumstances strengthened the apprehension that granting the petitioner liberty to travel abroad, particularly when she is a foreign national with longstanding ties to the UK, may result in her non-return. “Her contention that she has previously travelled freely prior to the LOC is irrelevant, as it was precisely her conduct during investigation that led to the adverse findings of this Court on previous occasions. The Respondent’s apprehension, based on concrete past behaviour, cannot be dismissed as speculative”, it held.

Noting that the petitioner was unable to dispel the risk highlighted in the earlier orders, her past non-compliance, the availability of requisite medical treatment within India, her status as a foreign national with no roots in this country, and the real and subsisting apprehension that she may not return to face trial, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Mrs Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 10149)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Maadhav Khurana, Advocates Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, Sanjivni Paritosh, Asees Kaur, Pragya, Rishika Jain

Respondent: CGSC Shiva Lakshmi, GP Archana Surve, SFIO Nupur Grover, Advocates Madhav Bajaj, Katyayani Joshi, Senior Assistant Director M. Akanksha Bhadouria

Click here to read/download Order