Atul Punj v. Union of India

1. The present writ petition has been received on transfer on an urgent mentioning.

2. The petitioner, vide the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:

3. Succinctly put, the petitioner seeks suspension of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner by the respondents and further seeks permission to travel to Lisbon (Portugal) and Spain via Dubai, UAE between 25.08.2025 to 16.09.2025.

4. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the Medical Report dated 17.06.2025 issued by the Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET-CT, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket (East Block), New Delhi-110 017 (Max Healthcare) [Annexure 1], submits that there is an emergent need for the petitioner to have filed the present writ petition for seeking appropriate reliefs for travelling abroad. The relevant extract of the said Medical Report dated 17.06.2025 issued by the Max Healthcare is reproduced as under:- “......Brief clinical history: Patient was incidentally detected to have increased S.PSA. MRI prostate suggestive of PIRADS-4 lesions in peripheral and transition zones.

S.PSA-11 ng/ml. Current PET-CT is being done for disease status evaluation. Non PSMA avid, exophytic hypodense lesion with areas of fat attenuation is noted in lower pole of right kidney, measuring~2.[8] x 2.[4] x 2.[6] (cc) cm-? angiomyolipoma. Prostate gland measures ~4.[2] x 5.[2] x 4.[9] (cc) cm. Low grade heterogeneous PSMA uptake (SUV max: 2.9) is noted in central and transition zones of the prostate gland. A subcentimeter sized focal enhancing nodule with no significant PSMA uptake is seen in right posterior peripheral zone of the mid gland. Bilateral seminal vesicles appear unremarkable.......”

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner then submits that though the petitioner is involved in different proceedings, which are still pending, however, this Court, in an earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) 9372/2024 filed by him, vide order dated 07.01.2025, permitted suspension of the LOC issued against the petitioner by the respondents to allow the petitioner to travel to the United Kingdom for a period of 15 days i.e. from 01.02.2025 to 15.02.2025 as also granted liberty to approach the Court, should the circumstances warrant, subject to certain conditions imposed therein. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid order dated 07.01.2025 is reproduced herein as under: “......13. The principle of res judicata, enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, precludes a Court from adjudicating an issue that has been directly and substantially decided in a prior proceeding between the same parties. However, the doctrine of res judicata does not rigidly apply to writ proceedings, especially in cases where ongoing violations of fundamental rights are alleged. Even the principle of constructive res judicata which is often applied to ensure judicial finality, cannot prevent the enforcement of fundamental rights when the cause of action has undergone change. When subsequent developments alter the factual or legal matrix, courts retain the flexibility to revisit and adjudicate such matters to ensure justice. In such cases, courts must adopt a pragmatic approach, balancing the need for judicial finality with the imperative to protect constitutional rights in light of new and compelling circumstances. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res judicata cannot be stretched to perpetuate restrictions on fundamental rights, particularly when the justification for such restrictions has dissipated. x x x x x x

23. In any event, SFIO possesses the mechanism to obtain evidence independently, including through forensic analyses of PLL’s financial accounts. The liquidator of PLL, appointed during the liquidation proceedings, holds custody of all relevant company records, which are readily accessible to the SFIO for their investigation. It is also noteworthy that the investigating agencies are already apprised of the Petitioner’s foreign assets, leaving little room for concealment or evasion. Crucially, there have been no credible allegations of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or any conduct by the Petitioner that could potentially derail the investigation. In such circumstances, the indefinite continuation of the LOC imposed on the Petitioner cannot be justified. As observed in multiple judgments, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, any restriction on personal liberty must meet the test of proportionality and be reasonably connected to the legitimate aims sought to be achieved. Here, the prolonged nature of the investigation, coupled with the absence of tangible progress or imminent charges, raises questions about the necessity and proportionality of continued restrictions on the Petitioner’s movement.

27. The right to travel abroad, being an essential component of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily or indefinitely. Restrictions such as an LOC must pass the test of proportionality and necessity, ensuring that they are imposed only when supported by credible material. In the present case, while the State’s interest in investigating allegations of financial impropriety is undeniable, this Court finds that the absence of tangible material on record of the Petitioner’s intent to abscond or tamper with the investigation tilts the balance in favour of permitting conditional travel.

28. The LOC against the Petitioner is primarily stemming from the financial defaults of the company for which the Petitioner served as Director. In the absence of conclusive findings after five years of investigation and with the Petitioner’s continued cooperation, the prolonged restrictions on his right to travel cannot be justified. Furthermore, the Petitioner has expressed his willingness to furnish security to mitigate flight risk. However, keeping in mind the nature of allegations levelled against the Petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, blanket quashing of the LOC at this stage would be premature. Therefore, in order to balance Petitioner’s right to travel abroad and the State’s interest in ensuring his availability for investigation, this Court is inclined to permit the suspension of LOC against the Petitioner by the Respondents to allow him to travel to the United Kingdom for a period of 15 days commencing from 1st February, 2025 i.e., till 15th February, 2025, subject to following conditions:

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner then submits that though the aforesaid order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondent no.2 before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA 77/2025, however, the Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated 31.01.2025, affirmed the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and disposed of the appeal observing as under: “......9. Insofar as the other assets of the respondent are concerned, we are informed that apart from those which stand recorded in his own name, the SFIO had in the course of its investigation also uncovered various assets and properties in which it was alleged that the respondent had a beneficial interest. In the course of those proceedings, the respondent is stated to have admitted to some of those assets present in the country being liable to be viewed as his property.

10. We thus only deem it apposite to note that such properties and immovable assets, which were acceded to before the SFIO in the course of its investigation as belonging to the respondent, shall not be transferred nor would any third party interests be created upon them, during the period of the respondent’s travel.......”

7. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed another writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) 5141/2025 seeking similar reliefs i.e. for travelling to London, UK and Milan, Italy between 23.06.2025 to 11.07.2025, which, was also disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2025 by a learned Single Judge after taking note of the previous orders dated 07.01.2025 and 31.01.2025, after imposing certain conditions, as enumerated in paragraph nos.[8] and 10 of the aforesaid order dated 16.05.2025.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents as well as the amounts deposited pursuant to the directions as contained in paragraph nos.[8] and 10 of the order dated 16.05.2025, are still lying with the Registrar General of this Court.

9. Based thereon, learned senior counsel for the petitioner urges this Court to allow the present writ petition on the same terms and conditions.