Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court on Look Out Circular and Travel Restriction: Medical Urgency Insufficient to Override Flight Risk

Update / Judgement Date

18 Nov 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

3 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court on Look Out Circular and Travel Restriction: Medical Urgency Insufficient to Override Flight Risk
WCP News Bulletin

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking permission for travel abroad by the petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India and UK resident, against a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued during an SFIO investigation into alleged siphoning of funds by Net4 India Ltd. and related entities. The Court held that the petitioner, despite citing medical urgency, had not demonstrated that the requisite treatment was unavailable in India, and her history of non-cooperation and concealment of bank accounts during investigation, combined with her status as a foreign national with strong UK ties, posed a real risk of absconding. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 restricting travel was upheld.


Background:

  1. The petitioner, OCI and UK resident, was stopped at IGI Airport in August 2022 due to LOC issued on 13.06.2022 during an SFIO probe into Net4 India Ltd. and family-run companies over alleged siphoning of ~Rs. 208 crores.
  2. Earlier writ petitions (W.P.(C) 13057/2022 and 14757/2022) were dismissed on 16.08.2023, upholding the LOC due to her non-cooperation.
  3. Petitioner claimed she was a non-executive director in subsidiaries NNSL and PCPL with no role in day-to-day management or financial affairs.
  4. She cited multiple serious health ailments, including cardiac complications requiring MICRA AV device implantation, seeking permission to travel to the UK for treatment.


Court’s Observations:

  1. Investigation revealed petitioner held key positions in group companies, signed critical agreements (e.g., MRA dated 20.10.2016) that diverted ~Rs. 60 crores to NNSL benefiting family-controlled entities, and failed to disclose conflicts of interest.
  2. Petitioner’s claims of non-involvement contradicted her own Form PAS-4 submitted to MCA describing herself as having “vast experience in business,” undermining her plea of ignorance.
  3. Only partial bank statements were voluntarily provided; 33 accounts, some under her or her companies’ names, were initially concealed, reflecting non-cooperation.
  4. Past court orders (13.12.2022, 16.08.2023) highlighted sustained non-compliance and evasiveness.
  5. Medical urgency was not persuasive; requisite advanced cardiac treatment is available at reputable institutions in India.
  6. Petitioner’s status as a foreign national with no roots in India, combined with co-accused son absconding, raised a real risk of non-return.


Legal Principles Discussed:

  1. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to personal liberty balanced against public interest.
  2. Sections 177, 188 & 189, Companies Act, 2013 – Duties of directors regarding transactions, conflict of interest, and approvals.
  3. Precedents relied upon included Mandhir Singh Todd v. ED, Kanwar Deep Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Marie Andre Leclerc v. State (Delhi Admn.).


Decision:

  1. Petition for permission to travel abroad dismissed.
  2. Impugned order dated 21.10.2024 restricting travel under LOC is upheld.
  3. Court emphasized balancing Article 21 rights with public interest and ensuring accused remain amenable to investigation and trial.


Citation: 2025:DEL:214/2025

Case: Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union of India & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025

CRL.M.C. No.: 214/2025 & CRL.M.A. 1146/2025 (Interim Relief)