Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The grounds of opposition to the said order on which the order was challenged are that there are no supporting documents showing that the respondent was required to travel abroad to undergo any procedure that is not available in India, this Court in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Kanwar Deep Singh, Crl.M.C. 1748/2022 passed on 24.05.2022 had held that no foreign travel can be allowed where the medical treatment is available in India; the medical condition of the respondent was stable during his custody; the respondent is involved in commission of grave economic offence and there is every likelihood that the accused will influence the witnesses, tamper with the evidence and hamper further investigation; the accused has not furnished details of his foreign businesses, assets and investments; the facility for removal of maxillofacial cysts and heart checkup are very well available in India and the medical documents do not show that the respondent's situation is such that he needs to travel abroad.

10.2 The maxillofacial cyst surgery is to be done by and under the supervision of the Doctors who are treating him regarding his heart ailment.

The grandfather and the father of the present respondent had also died with the same heart disease. Even the respondent had undergone major surgery (angiography) in the year 2016 and he is taking blood thinning medicines prescribed by his treating doctors. For removal of maxillofacial cyst, he has to stop taking the said drug. Hence, the supervision, care and treatment under Doctor Ramasamy Danapal based in London is required, who is well aware of the respondent's medical history.

12. A report has been also placed on record by the petitioner obtained from medical Superintendent AIIMS Hospital regarding availability of the treatment of maxillofacial cyst at the Center for Dental Surgery at AIIMS and the 640 Slice CT Scan machine being available in Apollo Hospital, as mentioned above.

13. It is the admitted case of both the parties that after the registration of the earlier ECIR in the year 2010, the respondent has travelled abroad on a number of occasions after getting his passport released from the Court and he has never violated any of the terms and conditions, which were imposed by the learned Trial Court. The only change in circumstance is that another ECIR has been registered against him, in which he is on bail and a condition for deposit of passport was put afresh.

16. In my view, the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the present respondent to travel abroad because he needs to be under the treatment of the concerned Doctor, who knows his medical condition and because of his heart condition, his cyst cannot be removed without a competent Doctor being in charge of his heart condition during procedure, when the cyst is being removed.

17. Merely stating that the treatment for removal of maxillofacial cysts is available in AIIMS where appointment is not available till August, 2022 end and the 640 Slice CT Scan is available in Apollo where the respondent has lost his father during the treatment, cannot be a ground to deny the respondent the permission already granted by the learned Trial Court. If the cyst is to be removed in AIIMS then how the machines available in Apollo Hospital can be of any help?