The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai, has permitted an accused in an alleged large-scale gold diversion and customs duty evasion case to travel to Hong Kong for six months, observing that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had not shown that she violated any condition imposed during her earlier foreign travel.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Anuradha A. Pandule also directed that the Lookout Circular issued against the accused, Rajpreet Kaur, be withdrawn and kept in abeyance for the six-month travel period, limited to the crime and proceedings in question.

Buy Now: Customs Duty E-Magazine – August 2026

Accused sought permission to return to Hong Kong

Kaur sought the court’s permission to travel abroad for another six months and requested a direction to the DRI to recall the Lookout Circular issued against her.

According to the order, Kaur is a resident of Amritsar and has obtained Hong Kong citizenship. She claimed to have an established business in Hong Kong and submitted that her physical presence was necessary for conducting its affairs.

She also told the court that her two school-going minor children were living in Hong Kong and required her care and supervision.

Kaur had been arrested by the DRI for alleged offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. She was granted bail on February 7, 2026, subject to conditions that included surrendering her passport for six months and not travelling outside India without the court’s prior permission.

Court had earlier permitted six-month foreign travel

The court noted that Kaur had previously been permitted to travel abroad through an order dated February 26, 2026, passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 585 of 2026.

That permission was subject to several conditions, including the deposit of ₹5 lakh as cash security. The amount remained deposited with the court and had not been withdrawn.

Apart from the travel security, Kaur had also deposited ₹2 lakh as cash security in lieu of furnishing a solvent surety under the bail order.

Her counsel, Dr Sujay Kantawala, argued that Kaur had complied with all the conditions imposed during the previous six-month travel period. It was submitted that neither her bail conditions nor the conditions attached to the earlier travel permission had been violated.

DRI cites alleged diversion of 1,560 kg gold

The Intelligence Officer of the DRI, Mumbai, opposed the application, describing the alleged offence as a serious socio-economic crime involving an international nexus and substantial economic consequences.

The DRI alleged that a syndicate had diverted approximately 1,560 kilograms of gold into the domestic market and exported imitation jewellery in its place. According to the agency, around 400 kilograms of imitation jewellery had been exported directly to a company owned by Kaur, identified in the order as M/s Kreacions Pvt. Ltd.

The prosecution submitted that customs adjudication concerning the 400 kilograms of imitation jewellery had not yet been completed.

It was further argued that the case involved allegations of conspiracy, abetment and facilitation of large-scale customs duty evasion. The DRI contended that customs adjudication proceedings could not absolve the accused of potential criminal liability.

The agency also maintained that a statement recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act constituted a material piece of evidence. The fact that a show cause notice had been adjudicated or that a penalty had been imposed would neither bar criminal prosecution nor dilute the seriousness of the allegations, it argued.

DRI raises flight-risk concerns

Special Public Prosecutor R.K. Pathak, appearing for the DRI, submitted that the alleged offence was cognisable and non-bailable under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act.

The prosecution argued that the grant of bail did not automatically entitle an accused to permission to travel abroad. The right to travel, it contended, was not absolute and remained subject to the procedure established by law and conditions imposed by the court.

It also pointed out that while granting the earlier travel permission, the court had directed Kaur not to seek any further extension of her foreign stay. Allowing her to remain abroad for another extended period, the DRI argued, could affect her cooperation with the pending investigation.

The agency therefore urged the court to reject the application, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the perceived risk that Kaur might not return or cooperate with the proceedings.

Applicant says investigation is over

Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel for the applicant countered that the investigation had already been completed and that her statement had been recorded while she was in judicial custody.

It was argued that she had never violated any bail or travel condition and had returned in compliance with the earlier order. Her counsel also submitted that she was the sole signatory for her company and that its business operations had suffered because of restrictions on her travel.

Dr. Kantawala, informed the court that a penalty of ₹20 lakh had been imposed on her by the Joint Commissioner on January 31, 2024. Her appeal was subsequently rejected by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals-I) on March 27, 2025.

DRI fails to show violation of earlier conditions

The court acknowledged that adjudication concerning the alleged export of 400 kilograms of imitation jewellery remained pending. However, it observed that this circumstance was already in existence when Kaur was granted permission to travel abroad in February 2026.

Despite the pendency of those proceedings, the earlier court had allowed her to travel subject to safeguards.

Significantly, the magistrate recorded that the DRI had not placed anything on record to demonstrate that Kaur breached any condition imposed by the February 26 order.

The court found substance in the defence submission that Kaur had complied with all the conditions during her earlier six-month stay abroad.

The magistrate also considered the documents filed by Kaur, including the birth certificates of her minor children, passport and visa documents, student particulars and records concerning her residence in Amritsar and citizenship in Hong Kong.

Accepting the humanitarian ground raised in the application, the court observed that the minor children required their mother’s care.

The court further considered the fact that Kaur had filed her flight ticket, had not withdrawn the earlier ₹5 lakh cash security and had also maintained the ₹2 lakh cash deposit made in lieu of a solvent surety.

Permission subjected to strict safeguards

While allowing the application, the court imposed several conditions to ensure Kaur’s continued availability for the investigation and subsequent proceedings.

Kaur has been permitted to travel to Hong Kong for six months from September 2, 2026. She must provide her residential address, proof of residence, email address and telephone or mobile number to both the court and the DRI.

She must also furnish the addresses and mobile numbers of two close persons, with their consent and address proof. The authorities may contact them if she fails to appear during further investigation or trial.

The court directed Kaur to file an undertaking, with the consent of her advocate, stating that she would attend the adjudication and criminal proceedings and return after the expiry of the six-month period.

The ₹5 lakh already deposited as travel security will remain with the court during her stay abroad. Kaur will be entitled to withdraw it after reporting her return.

If she violates any of the conditions, the court directed that both the ₹5 lakh security and the bail amount would be forfeited to the State.

The Lookout Circular earlier issued by the DRI will remain withdrawn and in abeyance only for the present case and only during the permitted six-month travel period.

The court expressly directed that Kaur must not seek any further extension of her stay while remaining abroad.

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.

Read More: Delay in EEZ Fishing Passes Amounts to Impermissible ‘Unwritten Ban’: Supreme Court Directs Tamil Nadu to Act Promptly