The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to permit an accused in a high-profile money laundering case to travel to Abu Dhabi for medical treatment, holding that an accused facing serious economic offences cannot claim permission to seek treatment abroad merely on personal preference when equivalent medical facilities are available in India.
The bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas ruled that the petitioner failed to establish an exceptional medical exigency capable of outweighing the State’s interest in ensuring the uninterrupted progress of an ongoing criminal trial.
The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking permission to travel to Abu Dhabi, UAE, for treatment at the Khan Kinetic Treatment Orthopedic Spine Centre. He also sought liberty to undertake future overseas visits for follow-up medical treatment whenever advised by doctors.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The request arose after the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) rejected his application on June 6, 2026.
The petitioner is facing prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in connection with the alleged Chhattisgarh coal levy money laundering case. According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), he allegedly assisted the principal accused in acquiring coal washeries through transactions involving substantial cash components and acted as a benami in laundering proceeds of crime. The ED further alleged that after Income Tax searches, properties linked to the principal accused were acquired through sham transactions to shield tainted assets from attachment proceedings.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had earlier been denied regular bail by the High Court but subsequently secured interim bail from the Supreme Court in May 2024, which was later continued. One of the bail conditions required that he should not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the competent court.
The petitioner contended that he had developed a serious hamstring injury and persistent pain in his left leg. After examinations at Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai, he claimed to have identified KKT (Khan Kinetic Treatment) therapy available in Abu Dhabi as a specialised non-surgical treatment not available in India.
He argued that specialised KKT therapy was unavailable in India; the ED had not seriously opposed his travel request and had merely suggested safeguards such as furnishing passport, visa and travel details; he had fully complied with all bail conditions and had never misused his liberty; he had deep roots in India and there was no possibility of absconding; and the right to travel abroad forms part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner also relied upon several Supreme Court decisions where accused persons had been permitted to travel abroad, particularly for business or medical reasons, subject to appropriate safeguards.
The Enforcement Directorate strongly opposed the petition.
It argued that no qualified specialist or treating doctor had recommended KKT therapy abroad; the medical records only reflected routine treatment for muscle strain and age-related issues; the petitioner had failed to establish that such treatment was unavailable in India; the claim regarding exclusive availability of KKT treatment rested only on internet printouts; the petitioner had previously sought permission to travel to the same destination on different medical grounds; considering the serious money laundering allegations and the petitioner’s financial resources, there existed a genuine risk of flight.
The Court framed the principal question for determination as whether the petitioner had established an exceptional and bona fide case of medical exigency that outweighed the State’s interest in ensuring uninterrupted progress of the criminal trial.
The High Court acknowledged that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21. However, it emphasised that such a right is not absolute where an accused is facing criminal prosecution.
The Court observed that while considering permission to travel abroad, courts must evaluate the seriousness of allegations; the conduct of the accused; the likelihood of evasion of prosecution; and the overall balance between individual liberty and the administration of criminal justice.
Justice Vyas noted that the petitioner had not produced any medical opinion demonstrating that KKT therapy was the only effective treatment; equivalent treatment was unavailable in India; or denial of foreign treatment would endanger his life or seriously aggravate his medical condition.
The Court further observed that no Medical Board, government hospital or treating specialist had referred the petitioner for treatment abroad.
Rejecting the argument that treatment in Abu Dhabi was medically indispensable, the Court observed that India’s medical infrastructure possesses world-class expertise and advanced treatment facilities.
The judgment relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana (2026), wherein the apex court held that Indian medical facilities are comparable with those available abroad and that personal preference for treatment in another country cannot override legal considerations when adequate treatment exists domestically.
The Court also attached considerable weight to the gravity of the alleged money laundering offences.
It observed that the petitioner allegedly possessed substantial financial resources, influential connections and assets beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. If permitted to travel abroad, there existed a genuine possibility that he might evade prosecution, thereby delaying or frustrating the ongoing criminal trial involving several co-accused, including senior government officials.
The Court held that extradition proceedings in such circumstances could significantly derail the prosecution and adversely affect the constitutional mandate of speedy trial.
Concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish any exceptional medical necessity justifying foreign travel, the High Court upheld the Special Court’s decision refusing permission.
The Court held that no illegality or perversity existed in the impugned order and dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
