Personal Preference For Foreign Medical Treatment Not A Ground To Permit Overseas Travel By PMLA Accused: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an accused's personal preference to undergo medical treatment in a foreign country cannot override the mandate of law when equivalent medical facilities are available in India. The Court observed that permission to travel abroad on medical grounds can be granted only upon establishing a genuine medical necessity outweighing the State's interest in ensuring the uninterrupted progress of the criminal trial. [2026LiveLaw (Chh) 65]

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of the Special Judge (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Raipur, refusing permission to the petitioner to travel to Abu Dhabi, UAE, for treatment at Khan Kinetic Treatment Orthopedic Spine Centre. The petitioner, an accused facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, claimed that he was suffering from a left thigh hamstring injury and sought permission to undergo KKT therapy abroad, contending that such specialised treatment was unavailable in India. He also sought permission for future visits for follow-up treatment.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed the petition, contending that no treating doctor or specialist had recommended KKT therapy abroad, that equivalent treatment was available in India, and that the petitioner had failed to produce any reliable material establishing that such treatment was unavailable domestically.

The Court held that although the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the nature of the allegations, the conduct of the accused, and the need to ensure that the accused does not evade the criminal process.

Examining the material on record, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish any exceptional medical exigency. It observed that no medical board, treating hospital, or specialist had recommended KKT therapy in Abu Dhabi, nor was there any cogent material demonstrating that such treatment was unavailable in India.

The Court observed that medical facilities available in India are comparable with those available abroad and that an accused's preference for treatment in a particular foreign country cannot be equated with medical necessity.

“The choice of an accused to be treated in a specific foreign country cannot override the mandate of law when equivalent medical treatment is readily accessible domestically. Personal preference cannot be equated with absolute medical necessity,” the Court observed.

The Court also took note of the gravity of the allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the petitioner's financial resources and alleged international connections, and observed that permitting him to travel abroad carried a real possibility of evasion of the criminal process.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish an exceptional, bona fide case of medical exigency outweighing the State's interest in the uninterrupted progression of the criminal trial, and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement [CRMP No. 1534 of 2026].

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026LiveLaw (Chh) 65