W.P.(CRL)/968/2025 of MILIND KUMAR SINGH Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 968/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25320-25321/2025MILIND KUMAR SINGHMILIND KUMAR SINGH

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr.MadhavKhurana,SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Vikas Gogne, Mr.Satyam Chaturvedi and Ms. KashviBansal, Advocates.Advocate with Mr. Vikas Gogne, Mr.Satyam Chaturvedi and Ms. KashviBansal, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. CounselwithMr.VivekGurnani,PanelCounsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr.PranjalTripathiandMr.KanishMaurya, Advocates for ED.Mr. Saurabh, IO, ED.withMr.VivekGurnani,PanelCounsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr.PranjalTripathiandMr.KanishMaurya, Advocates for ED.Mr. Saurabh, IO, ED.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R%26.08.2025

1.The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaread with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeksquashing of the Look Out Circular[1]issued against the Petitioner at thebehest of the Respondent (Directorate of Enforcement[2]).

2.In the present case, the ED is conducting an investigation for offences

1 “LOC”2 “ED”

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002,[3]pursuant to ECIRNo. ECIR/DLZO-I/50/2021 dated 23[rd]September, 2021, which wasregistered subsequent to FIR No. RC2192021E0003 dated 23[rd]March, 2021,lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation for scheduled offences. In thecourse of this investigation, the Bureau of Immigration, at the instance of theED, issued an LOC against the Petitioner on 4[th]December, 2024, to preventhim from leaving the country. Consequently, the Petitioner has approachedthis Court seeking its quashing.

3.On 14[th]May, 2025, upon the Petitioner’s request for permission totravel abroad as interim relief, this Court considered the matter and grantedpermission, subject to certain conditions. The said order reads as follows:

“CRL.M.A. 13153/2025 (seeking suspension of operation of the Look Out

Circular)

1.Through this application, the Petitioner seeks suspension of LookOut Circular,[4]issued against him by the Respondent, as the Petitionerintends to travel to the UAE for period of three weeks from 26[th]May, 2025to 28[th]June, 2025. The constraint on the Petitioner’s travel is on account ofthe LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration, pursuant to the request madeby the Directorate of Enforcement/ Respondent.

2.Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submitsthat the Petitioner holds Residence Visa, which is prerequisite for lawfulresidence, employment and business operations in UAE. The said ResidenceVisa as well as the Resident Identity Card issued to the Petitioner by theGovernment of UAE expired on 22[nd]February, 2025 due to the Petitioner’sinability to travel to the UAE, on account of the issuance of the LOC.Consequently, the Petitioner is incapacitated from renewing his ResidenceVisa and Resident Identity Card, and consequently, needs to travel to theUAE for the purpose of renewing the same.

3.Mr. Khurana submits that the underlying ECIR, which forms thebasis of the LOC, was recorded on 23[rd]September, 2021. Pertinently, therewas no restriction on the Petitioner’s travel until the issuance of the LOC on4[th]December, 2024. During this period, the Petitioner travelled to the UAEnearly ten times, and returned to India each time. Furthermore, the

3 “PMLA”

4 “LOC”

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

Petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and has appearedbefore the Investigating Officer on five separate occasions. In thesecircumstances, it is submitted that the Petitioner may be permitted to travelabroad, subject to any conditions this Court may deem appropriate

4.Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel as well as Mr. Vivek Gurnani,Panel Counsel for the ED, oppose the present application. They submit thattheApplicanthasalwaysbeenevasiveduringthecourseof theinvestigation. Although he has appeared before the Investigating Officer, hehas failed to furnish the documents that were specifically requested fromhim. They further submit that there exists substantial risk of the Petitionerfleeing from the country in the event of the LOC being suspended. Theypoint out that the Petitioner intended to leave the country on 28[th]December,2024 without any information to the IO and was consequently, detained bythe immigrating authority.

5.The Court has considered the submissions advanced by bothparties. At present, there exists no direction issued by any court of law,restraining the Petitioner from travelling abroad, apart from the LOCissued by the Respondent. The Court notes that the underlying ECIR wasrecorded on 23[rd]September, 2021 and the investigation has been ongoingfor over four years. Yet, no complaint has been filed to date, marking theculmination of the investigation. In such circumstances, the continuedoperation of the LOC against the Petitioner amounts to restricting themovement of citizen who has right to travel abroad, which isacknowledged to be fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitutionof India, 1950, as observed in the landmark judgments of Maneka Gandhiv. Union of India[5]and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam,Assistant Passport Officer and Ors.[6]

6.Furthermore, the Petitioner has voluntarily offered to furnishappropriate securities to allay any apprehensions expressed by theRespondent. It is also significant to note that, notwithstanding theregistration of the ECIR and the pendency of investigation, the Petitionerhas travelled abroad on multiple occasions and has consistently returned tothe country, demonstrating his bona fides.

7.In light of the foregoing circumstances, the application is allowedand accordingly, the Applicant is permitted to travel from 26[th]May, 2025 to28[th]June, 2025 to the UAE with the following terms and conditions:(a)The Petitioner shall deposit, by way of security, an FDRamounting to INR 15 lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court, whichshall be kept on an auto-renewal mode.(b)The Petitioner shall also deposit the original documents pertainingto property No. C-402, B-3 Velentine Appts, Pimpripada, Malad East,Mumbai- 400097. He shall also file an undertaking before the Registrar

5 (1978) 1 SCC 2486 AIR 1967 SC 1836

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

General that he shall not alienate or mortgage the aforenoted propertywithout the permission of the Court, subject to further orders.

(c)The Petitioner shall file an undertaking before the RegistrarGeneral that he shall return to the country by 28[th]June, 2025. ThePetitioner shall intimate the Registrar General before leaving as well aswithin 72 hours of his return from the UAE.

(d)The Petitioner shall file detailed affidavit disclosing his completeitinerary, including his stay at various locations abroad as well astelephone numbers and residential/ hotel addresses. He shall also file anundertaking that he shall strictly adhere to the itinerary mentioned in theaffidavit and not visit any other stations. He shall also furnish copy of theair tickets purchased by him before the Registrar General.

(e)The Petitioner shall also provide contact numbers, where he shallbe available during his stay abroad and at least one of the said contactnumbers shall be kept operational at all times, subject to all fair exceptions,including the period he is on board the aircraft.

(f)The Petitioner shall file self-attested copy of his passport to theCourt, along with copy of the visa, on his return to India.

(g)The Petitioner shall also deposit the passport of his spouse andchildren with the Registrar General of this Court.

8.The permission to travel abroad given in this order shall be subjectto all other applicable conditions and shall not be deemed as direction toany other authority. In case any of the aforenoted conditions are violated,the security shall be forfeited.

9.Let the order be communicated by the Directorate of Enforcementto the Bureau of Immigration.

10.With the above directions, the application is disposed of.11.List before the Registrar for verification of documents on 19[th]May,2025.

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

12.Mr. Gurnani, Panel Counsel for Respondent, on instructions, statesthat the Petitioner has been called for investigating purposes and isrequired to appear before the IO on 16[th]May, 2025. In response, Mr.Khurana, on instructions, states that the Petitioner shall duly appear beforethe IO on the said date. His statement is taken on record.

13.Counter affidavit stated to have been filed by the ED is not onrecord. Let the same be brought on record.14.Mr. Khurana states that he has received copy of the counteraffidavit and seeks time to file rejoinder. Let the same be done before thenext date of hearing.15.Re-notify on 26[th]May, 2025.”

4.Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, states thatthe Petitioner duly complied with the aforesaid directions, travelled to the

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

UAE, and has since returned. He contends that such compliance itselfestablishes that the Petitioner does not pose flight risk. He further statesthat the Petitioner is willing to adhere to the same set of conditions imposedby this Court in the aforenoted order, for any future travel abroad, until theinvestigation against him is concluded. Mr. Khurana submits that thePetitioner is even willing to furnish an undertaking that he shall return toIndia within five days of receiving notice from the concerned InvestigatingOfficer and to extend full cooperation in the investigation as and whenrequired.

5.Mr. Khurana also seeks waiver of condition 7(g) of the aforesaidorder, which mandates deposit of the passports of the Petitioner’s spouseand children with the Registrar General of this Court, citing the medicalcondition of the Petitioner’s wife.

6.Per contra, Counsel for ED submits that the investigation is stillunderway, and they cannot with reasonable certainty indicate timeline forits completion. Nevertheless, it is urged that, having regard to the gravity ofthe offences involved, appropriate conditions must continue to be imposed ifthe Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad.

7.The Court has considered the abovenoted facts and contentions. ThePetitioner has complied with the conditions imposed in the order dated 14[th]May,2025,travelledabroad,andreturnedtoIndia.Hisconductdemonstrates bona fides and substantially mitigates the risk of flight. On theother hand, the investigation has been pending for nearly five years withoutculminating in the filing of complaint. The indefinite continuation of anLOC in such circumstances would unjustifiably restrict the Petitioner’s rightto travel abroad, facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

Constitution.[7]

8.Accordingly, the LOC issued against the Petitioner in connection withECIR/DLZO-I/50/2021 is quashed. However, in order to balance theconcerns of the investigating agency, the Petitioner’s travel abroad shall besubject to condition, specified hereinafter:

(a)The FDR amounting to INR 15 lakhs deposited with the RegistrarGeneral of this Court as per order dated 14[th]May, 2025 shall be retainedsubject to further directions.

(b)The original documents pertaining to property No. C-402, B-3Valentine Apartments, Pimpripada, Malad East, Mumbai–400097 depositedwith the Registrar General pursuant to the aforesaid order shall also beretained.

(c)As and when the Petitioner decides to travel abroad, he shall file anundertaking before the concerned Investigating Officer[8]that he shall returnto India within the period stated in his travel itinerary. He shall also intimatethe IO before leaving India and within 72 hours of his return.

(d)The Petitioner shall file detailed affidavit before the IO disclosinghis complete travel itinerary, including stay at various locations abroad,telephone numbers, and residential/hotel addresses. He shall furtherundertake not to deviate from the disclosed itinerary. Copies of air ticketsshall also be furnished to the IO prior to departure.

(e)The Petitioner shall provide contact numbers on which he can bereached during his stay abroad, and at least one such number shall remain

7 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248; Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam,Assistant Passport Officer and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1836. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248; Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam,Assistant Passport Officer and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1836.

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025

active at all times, except for reasonable exceptions such as flight duration.(f)The Petitioner shall furnish self-attested copy of his passport andvisa to the IO upon his return to India.

(g)The Petitioner shall return to India within five days of receipt ofnotice from the IO to join investigation and shall fully cooperate with thesame.

9.The permission to travel abroad given in this order shall be subject toall other applicable conditions and shall not be deemed as direction to anyother authority. In case any of the aforenoted conditions are violated, thesecurity shall be forfeited.

10.Let the order be communicated by the Directorate of Enforcement tothe Bureau of Immigration.

11.The above conditions shall continue till such time the investigationqua the Petitioner is complete. Thereafter, in case any further conditions arerequired to be imposed on Petitioner’s travel, that shall purely be theprerogative of the concerned Trial Court.

AUGUST 26, 2025d.negi

SANJEEV NARULA, J

W.P.(CRL) 968/2025