Telangana High Court
Tushar Prakash Ajwani vs The Union Of India on 5 March, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 37835 OF 2025
05.03.2026
Between:
Tushar Prakash Ajwani
.. Petitioner
And
The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Ministry, New Delhi & another
..Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioner states that he was born and brought up in India and his parents are presently residing in the State of Maharashtra. He pursued his education in India and acquired a Master of Business Administration degree; thereafter, he received employment opportunities in the United States of America, migrated to the United States, and subsequently acquired citizenship of the United States of America. It is stated, he is presently employed in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and shifted to Dubai for the purpose of his employment. He runs a business consultancy firm providing services to foreign companies and individuals in relation to 2 payment gateways, currency conversion, and other allied professional services.
1.1. Petitioner states that he has been providing consultancy services since November, 2022 and is also engaged in trading activities. In the course of his business activities, he was approached by a company namely "Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd." registered in Mumbai which requested him to facilitate payment gateways and related communication and IT setups with various payment platforms including PayTM, PayPal and PhonePe. His relationship with Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. was purely professional in nature and that he was not part and parcel of the company, nor was he involved in its management or day-to-day affairs. He had no role in the activities of the company apart from rendering professional consultancy services. It is further contended, he received monies from the said company strictly towards professional services rendered by him.
1.2. Petitioner states that during April, 2023, one of the Directors of Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. informed that the company's bank account had been frozen and requested him to verify the same. Upon verification, he was informed that Cyber Crime Station, Girgaon, Mumbai had issued instructions leading to freezing of the account and that he was required to 3 take up the issue with the Cyber Crime Station. He immediately visited the Cyber Crime Station, Mumbai and inquired about the reasons for freezing of the company's bank account. Petitioner contends that during such visit, he was questioned regarding his role in the company, to which he clarified that he was only a consultant rendering services and he had been requested by the Director to verify the freezing of the bank account. He furnished all the details relating to the company, including details of its Directors and other related information, and fully cooperated with the inquiry.
1.3. Petitioner states that after two days, he was once again called to the police station and questioned further. He once again informed the authorities of all relevant facts and fully cooperated with the investigation. After questioning and recording of information, police informed him that they were placing him under arrest in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2023 wherein he was arrayed as Accused No. 6. He approached the trial court and obtained bail. Petitioner further states that he subsequently came to know that another crime bearing No. 104 of 2023 had also been registered against certain persons including himself and that in the said case also, he was granted bail. When the company's account was frozen, he filed an Application seeking defreezing of the bank account and that the 4 learned Judge granted an order defreezing the same. In all the orders passed by the learned Judges, it was opined that there was no monetary benefit derived by him in the alleged crimes and that he had not made any money.
1.4. It is contended, petitioner received summons from the 2nd Respondent dated 14.05.2025 requiring him to appear on 04.06.2025; he immediately informed the 2nd Respondent that he was not available in India on the said date and requested for another date for appearance. He thereafter, received another summons dated 14.08.2025 directing to appear on 25.08.2025. It is stated, on 14.08.2025, he addressed a communication to the 2nd Respondent explaining, in detail, the circumstances and his inability to appear on the specified date. He also sought clarification as to why summons were being served on him and expressed his willingness to provide all information sought. He specifically requested the 2nd Respondent to furnish details of the complaint in connection with which he was summoned and also requested a copy of the ECIR so as to understand the allegations and enable him to provide necessary information. Till date, he has not been provided with information regarding the complaint pending with the 2nd Respondent.
51.5. Petitioner states that he travelled to India due to a family medical emergency and also to attend a court hearing in connection with an ongoing case. He immediately informed the office of the 2nd Respondent through e mail dated 15.11.2025 of his availability to appear on 17.11.2025, if required. He also informed the 2nd Respondent of his intention to return on 18.11.2025 owing to extremely short leave granted by his employer in Dubai. In the said e mail, he also expressed willingness to appear after two weeks, ie. post 18.11.2025, if required. However, he did not receive any response, therefore, proceeded to return to Dubai on 18.11.2025. He was shocked and surprised when he was offloaded and not permitted to board his flight due to Look Out Circular issued against him by the 2nd Respondent in connection with the said case. 1.6. Petitioner states that immediately on 18.11.2025 at approximately 11:00 PM, he received e mail from the 2nd Respondent directing him to be present before the office on 20.11.2025. Though he was unaware of the precise reasons for his summoning, fearing the consequences, he appeared before the 2nd Respondent on 20.11.2025 and 21.11.2025, during which dates, he provided all the information sought and answered all questions relating to the activities of Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. and his professional association with the said 6 company. After furnishing information, he was informed that he should provide any further information if required, and he undertook to furnish all information in his possession and assured full participation in the inquiry. He also addressed e mail dated 27.11.2025 elaborating upon the sequence of events, his participation in the inquiry, and his intention to cooperate and requested the 2nd Respondent to lift or cancel the subsisting Look Out Circular and to grant him permission to travel abroad. Petitioner states that he informed the 2nd Respondent of his pressing employment commitments in Dubai and his confirmed travel ticket and he also handed over the order passed by the learned Judge granting him permission to leave India between 13.09.2025 and 31.07.2026 for employment purposes. 1.7. On 29.11.2025, he received email from the officer of the 2nd Respondent stating that certain additional information was required and directing him to submit the same by 01.12.2025. According to petitioner, he submitted all the information by e mail dated 01.12.2025. Despite such submission the 2nd Respondent has not revoked the LOC, thereby hampering his employment and causing irreparable loss and grave hardship to him and his family.
1.8. Petitioner contends that as per the procedure governing issuance and review of Look Out Circulars, once a 7 person appears before the investigating authority and participates in the inquiry, the Originating Agency is required to assess whether such person is likely to evade investigation or trial by leaving the country. If the assessment reveals that the person is likely to evade, LOC may be continued; otherwise, the same must be deleted by informing the Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi. An LOC remains in force unless a deletion request is received from the Originating Agency and that the Originating Agency is required to periodically review the LOC on a quarterly and annual basis and to submit proposals for deletion immediately after the person appears and participates in the investigation, if the LOC is not required in its assessment. Petitioner asserts that the officers concerned are strictly directed to follow the guidelines for opening and reviewing LOCs and to take appropriate action for deletion when continuation is not warranted.
1.9. Petitioner contends that fundamental rights in a democratic setup play a pivotal role and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India interpreted the scope of Article 21 in the widest possible manner. Fundamental rights can be curtailed only by a procedure established by law. The 2nd Respondent ought to exercised caution in issuing and continuing a Look Out Circular 8 and that once a person appears and cooperates in the investigation, LOC ought to be recalled or revoked. Petitioner states that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad and that no person can be deprived of this right except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. It is stated, petitioner had already obtained permission from the trial court to travel abroad; despite the same, the 2nd Respondent has not recalled the LOC, thereby preventing him from leaving for his employment. Petitioner states that he is under threat of losing his employment, as his employer has issued a communication directing him to join office or face termination, and that loss of employment would cause irreparable loss and injury to him and his family which cannot be compensated.
2. The 2nd Respondent filed a detailed counter contending that the Directorate of Enforcement is an investigating agency functioning under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and is empowered to investigate matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), and that it is the competent authority to investigate offences under the PMLA and FEMA. The 2nd Respondent denies all allegations made in the writ petition except those specifically admitted. 9 2.1. It is stated, the genesis of the case lies in FIR No. 598 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023 registered at PS Cyber Crime, Hyderabad against unknown suspects under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. The FIR was based on a written complaint by Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar NV S/o Late N. Bhaskara Rao alleging that he was cheated in the guise of a "Rate and Review" part- time job offered via Telegram and was defrauded of Rs. 25.48 lakhs. The 2nd Respondent contends that the police investigation in the said FIR is still in progress. 2.2. It is further stated, similar FIRs were registered at multiple police stations under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 419 and 420 IPC, wherein cyber fraudsters induced members of the public by offering part-time jobs for reviewing and rating websites, hotels and tourist destinations with promises of high returns, collected huge pre-deposits, and absconded with the funds. The 2nd Respondent contends that cyber scam was committed by unknown fraudsters suspected to be operating from outside India in active connivance with various Indian entities and individuals, some of whom were arrested by PS Cyber Crime in connection with the scheduled offence. It is further contended that the masterminds lured the public by claiming association 10 with Tripadvisor and collected funds in the guise of pre- deposits.
2.3. The 2nd Respondent states that since the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are scheduled offences under the PMLA, an Enforcement Case Information Report bearing No. ECIR/HYZO/25/2023 was recorded on 25.07.2023 and investigation under the PMLA was initiated against Prakash Mulchandbhai Prajapati, Kumar Jitendra Prajapati, Naimuddin Wahiduddin Shaik, Gagan Kumar Soni, Parveez alias Guddu, Shameer Khan, Mohammed Munawar, Shah Sumair, Arul Das and unknown others to identify proceeds of crime generated out of the cyber frauds and laundered for personal gains. 2.4. The 2nd Respondent contends that Writ Petition reflects insecurity on the part of Petitioner and he rushed to this Court without genuine apprehension. It is stated that summons were issued to him under Section 50 of the PMLA on 14.05.2025 and 14.08.2025 for his examination, but he failed to appear and, by e mail dated 26.05.2025, informed that he is neither a citizen nor resident of India, is a citizen of the United States of America residing in the United Arab Emirates, and was unable to travel to India for appearance on 04.06.2025. The 2nd Respondent further states that even after service of proper annexures to the summons dated 14.05.2025 seeking certain 11 data and information, Petitioner stated that the summons did not contain details of the case for which his presence was required.
2.5. The 2nd Respondent contends that considering the sensitive nature of the investigation and the necessity of the Petitioner's examination for tracing proceeds of crime and examining his role under the PMLA, summons dated 14.08.2025 were issued requiring his appearance on 25.08.2025. He did not respond and, one day prior to the scheduled appearance, by e mail dated 24.08.2025, again expressed inability to travel due to work commitments in UAE. Despite receipt of summons on two occasions, petitioner failed to appear and failed to furnish basic details sought. By letter dated 01.09.2025 in response to summons dated 14.08.2025, petitioner reiterated that he had no house in India, stayed with his parents in Mumbai during visits, and that the summons did not disclose details of the case.
2.6. The 2nd Respondent states that Petitioner was in India from November 2022 to November 2023 intending to start a business in consultancy and came into contact with M/s Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. to facilitate payment gateway services and related IT setup. The 2nd Respondent contends that in April 2023, upon freezing of the company's bank account by 12 Cyber Crime Department, Girgaon, Mumbai, petitioner approached the Cyber Crime authorities and was questioned about his role. Two days later, he was arrested and arrayed as Accused No. 6 in CC No. PW/320/323 and was informed that M/s Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. had received indirect funds obtained by fraud. The 2nd Respondent further states that in September 2023, Petitioner was arrested by Cyber Crime Department, Pune during investigation of a cyber crime case and was granted bail by order dated 10.11.2023. 2.7. The 2nd Respondent contends that in view of petitioner's failure to appear despite summons and failure to furnish complete requisite data and information, and considering the gravity and nature of the offence, a Look Out Circular was issued against him on 12.10.2025. By e mail dated 15.11.2025, petitioner informed that he had arrived in Mumbai for a family medical emergency and expressed willingness to appear on 17.11.2025 or at a later date two weeks thereafter, as he had booked return travel for 18.11.2025. The 2nd Respondent contends that Petitioner did not communicate telephonically regarding his arrival and attempted to leave India on the night of 18.11.2025 until he was detected on the LOC by the Bureau of Immigration. Upon detection and as per the parameters of the LOC, he was prevented from leaving the 13 country. After receipt of e mail from the Bureau of Immigration, Respondent informed Petitioner by e mail dated 18.11.2025 to appear on 20.11.2025 for examination.
2.8. The 2nd Respondent contends that considering his time constraints and in compliance with principles of natural justice, his deposition was recorded on 20.11.2025 and 21.11.2025 under Section 50 of the PMLA. During examination, certain questions relating to his role and involvement were put to him and he undertook to submit relevant data and information by 25.11.2025. The 2nd Respondent states that he failed to submit the undertaken information and tendered false statements. Thereafter, by e mail dated 28.11.2025, Petitioner requested lifting or revocation of the LOC to enable him to travel to Dubai. The 2nd Respondent contends that by e mail dated 29.11.2025, he was given another opportunity to submit pending information by 01.12.2025. However, by e mail dated 01.12.2025, he again failed to submit complete data and information, demonstrating non-cooperation and evasiveness. 2.9. It is also stated, petitioner has been charge-sheeted as Accused No. 6 in FIR No. 11 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 of PS South Cyber, Crime Branch, Mumbai and as Accused No. 1 in FIR No. 104 of 2023 dated 11.07.2023 of PS Cyber Crime, Pune City, Maharashtra, relatable to the scheduled offences. During 14 investigation, it was revealed that both the above FIRs are interlinked and connected with the instant case, as multiple primary and secondary layer bank accounts used for collection and layering of proceeds of crime were common across the cases. It is stated that summons were issued to Dilip Mayur Nikam, Mehul Chhadwa and Anshu Yadav, Director of Mis SBS Recharge Pvt. Ltd., and their statements were recorded. These statements revealed that Tushar Prakash Ajwani was arranging funds through Aditi Parmar and that Dilip Mayur Nikam was arranging USDT through intermediaries including Spay India, Quicksun Technologies Pvt. Ltd., SBS Recharge, Mehul Chhadwa, Paresh Shah, Pintu Singh @ Balvir Singh and others. 2.10. It is also stated, Whats App chat screenshots of groups comprising Petitioner, Mayur Dilip Nikam and Aditi Parmar revealed that Aditi Parmar shared crypto wallet details for receiving USDT against transfer of online funds into bank accounts shared by Petitioner and Dilip Mayur Nikam. It is contended that several bank account details and contact numbers of suspects were found in the mobile phone of the Petitioner seized by PS Cyber Crime, Pune City, and that investigation is still in progress as numerous bank accounts are involved and connected with the instant case involving victims across India who were cheated through fake tour and travel 15 promotion links and whose funds were converted into USDT and layered further.
2.11. The 2nd Respondent states that examination of the above persons revealed that M/s SBS Recharge Pvt. Ltd. alone had received proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 15 Crores from multiple primary and secondary layer bank accounts and handed over cash to others for conversion into USDT and transfer to crypto wallets shared by Aditi Parmar to Tushar Prakash Ajwani and Mayur Dilip Nikam. Petitioner is part of a chain wherein proceeds of crime were converted into USDT in lieu of commission and that being a citizen of the United States, there exists every possibility that he may leave India and it would be difficult to secure his presence before the Court for fair trial. There is a strong possibility that Petitioner may not appear before the Directorate, thereby hampering ongoing investigation and actions relating to attachment of proceeds of crime and prosecution of persons involved in money laundering. 2.12. The 2nd Respondent further states that Petitioner failed to provide details of his associates including Amit Sahani, Aditi Parmar and others involved in collection and conversion of proceeds of crime into cash or USDT, and that his examination regarding receipt of commission and matters relating to charge sheets filed by PS South Cyber Crime Branch, Mumbai and PS 16 Cyber Crime, Pune City is still pending. It is also contended that the Petitioner continued to remain part of a Whats App group with Aditi Parmar and Dilip Mayur Nikam even after freezing of bank accounts shared by Dilip Mayur Nikam for receipt of funds from Aditi Parmar for conversion into USDT. In view of the above, it is contended, the Look Out Circular issued against Petitioner ought not to be revoked and prays that no relief be granted until his complete examination is concluded or until final conclusion of the case, whichever is later.
3. Heard Ms. Monica P. Pole, learned counsel representing Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.T. Kalyan, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government.
4. From the material on record, it is to be noticed, the Enforcement Case Information Report bearing No. ECIR/HYZO/25/2023 dated 25.07.2023 arises out of FIR No. 598 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023 registered at PS Cyber Crime, Hyderabad, based on allegations of cyber fraud involving cheating to the tune of Rs. 25.48 lakhs in the guise of "Rate and Review" part-time employment offers circulated through Telegram. The offences invoked under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are undisputedly scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Once a scheduled offence is 17 registered and material discloses generation of proceeds of crime, the Directorate of Enforcement is statutorily empowered to register an ECIR and initiate investigation under the provisions of the PMLA. The authority of the Directorate in this regard is traceable to statute and is not in dispute.
5. Section 50 of the PMLA confers power upon the authorized officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce records during the course of investigation. Proceedings under Section 50 are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Therefore, summons issued under Section 50 carry statutory force and cannot be treated as mere administrative communications. The record reflects that summons were issued to Petitioner on 14.05.2025 requiring his appearance on 04.06.2025 and again on 14.08.2025, requiring his appearance on 25.08.2025. It is an admitted position that Petitioner did not appear pursuant to the said summons. Though he expressed inability to travel on account of his residence in the United Arab Emirates and his status as a citizen of the United States of America, the fact remains that the investigating authority was deprived of his examination at the relevant time. Issuance of Look Out Circular on 12.10.2025 was preceded by such non-appearance.
18
6. Petitioner arrived India on 15.11.2025 and communicated by e mail expressing willingness to appear either on 17.11.2025 or two weeks thereafter. However, he attempted to depart India on 18.11.2025 without securing confirmation from the investigating authority regarding rescheduling of his examination. Upon detection pursuant to the LOC by the Bureau of Immigration, he was prevented from leaving the country. Thereafter, he was examined on 20.11.2025 and 21.11.2025 under Section 50 of the PMLA.
7. The principal issue for consideration is whether continuation of Look Out Circular after his examination on 20.11.2025 and 21.11.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. The counter discloses that during examination, petitioner undertook to furnish certain information and data by 25.11.2025. It is specifically averred that he failed to furnish the undertaken information and that the material supplied subsequently on 01.12.2025 was incomplete. It is further averred that his examination in relation to certain associates, including persons allegedly involved in conversion of proceeds of crime into USDT, and in relation to charge sheets filed in FIR No. 11 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 of PS South Cyber, Crime 19 Branch, Mumbai and FIR No. 104 of 2023 dated 11.07.2023 of PS Cyber Crime, Pune City, is still pending.
9. The material placed by Respondents also indicates that the investigation concerns interlinked FIRs, multiple primary and secondary layer bank accounts, and alleged conversion of proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 15 Crores into USDT crypto currency. Statements of other persons recorded under investigation allegedly implicate Petitioner in arranging funds through Aditi Parmar and in sharing bank accounts for receipt of online funds which were thereafter converted into crypto assets. Whether these allegations ultimately result in prosecution or conviction is not a matter for determination at this stage. However, for the limited purpose of assessing justification for continuation of an LOC, the Court must consider whether there exists prima facie material warranting further examination and securing of presence.
10. The guidelines governing Look Out Circulars contemplate that the Originating Agency must assess whether the subject is likely to evade investigation or trial. Such assessment is essentially factual in nature and involves evaluation of conduct, past compliance, gravity of offence, and possibility of non-availability. Judicial review of such 20 assessment is limited to examining whether the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or without material basis.
11. In the present case, Petitioner did not respond to two summons issued in May and August 2025. He attempted to depart India on 18.11.2025 prior to securing confirmation regarding his examination. He is admittedly, a citizen of the United States of America residing in the United Arab Emirates. He is charge-sheeted as Accused No. 6 in FIR No. 11 of 2023 and as Accused No. 1 in FIR No. 104 of 2023. His examination under Section 50 of the PMLA is stated to be incomplete, with pending queries relating to associates and alleged receipt of commission in connection with conversion of proceeds of crime into USDT.
12. In these circumstances, the apprehension expressed by Respondent that there exists a possibility of Petitioner leaving India and not being readily available for further investigation cannot be said to be unfounded or irrational. The decision to continue LOC is thus supported by material considerations and cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The reliance placed by Petitioner on the judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is duly noted. There can be no dispute that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21. However, the said right is not absolute. 21 It is subject to procedure established by law. The PMLA is a special legislation enacted to combat the menace of money laundering and confers statutory powers upon the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate offences relating to proceeds of crime. When investigation is pending and presence of a person is considered necessary, reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with statutory procedure cannot be held per se violative of Article 21.
13. The permission granted by the trial Court permitting travel between 13.09.2025 and 31.07.2026 in connection with other criminal proceedings does not automatically bind the Directorate of Enforcement in respect of proceedings under the PMLA. Each authority acts within the scope of its statutory mandate. Mere existence of a travel permission in one proceeding does not extinguish powers of another statutory authority where independent investigation is pending.
14. The scope of interference under Article 226 does not extend to substituting the subjective satisfaction of the investigating agency with that of the Court, particularly in matters involving assessment of flight risk and necessity of securing presence during investigation. The Court does not sit in appeal over investigative discretion unless it is shown that 22 the action is vitiated by mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, or absence of jurisdiction.
15. In the present case, no material is placed before this Court to establish mala fides or colourable exercise of power. The LOC was issued after non-compliance with summons. Its continuation is justified on the ground of incomplete examination, gravity of alleged offences involving large-scale cyber fraud and money laundering, interlinked FIRs, and Petitioner's foreign citizenship and residence abroad. The procedure adopted cannot be said to be unknown to law or dehors statutory authority. This Court is therefore, satisfied that the action of the 2nd Respondent in continuing the Look Out Circular is based on relevant material and a rational nexus with the object of securing presence of the Petitioner for ongoing investigation. No violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 is made out in the facts of the case.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that Petitioner failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, or constitutional infirmity in the continuation of the Look Out Circular issued on 12.10.2025. The impugned action is traceable to statutory power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and is supported by material on record. 23
17. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 05th March 2026 ksld