Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 02.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Sunil Kumar Agrawal, resident of Raipur; Respondent – Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Zone.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP) No. 1534 of 2026 filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the Special Court’s order dated 06.06.2026 which denied permission to travel to Abu Dhabi for medical treatment.
  • Background: Agrawal, promoter of M/s Indermani Group, is alleged to have facilitated money‑laundering for Suryakant Tiwari, involving acquisition of two coal washeries worth Rs 96 crore (Rs 34 crore via bank, remainder in cash). He was charge‑sheeted under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. He obtained interim bail from the Supreme Court (SLP (Crl.) No. 5890/2024) and was released on bail with the condition that he not leave India without court permission.
  • Medical Claim: Agrawal suffered a left‑leg hamstring and calf injury diagnosed at Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai (OPD sheet 30.04.2026, X‑ray 11.05.2026, consultation 14.05.2026). He sought permission to undergo Khan Kinetic Treatment (KKT) at the KKT Orthopedic Spine Centre, Abu Dhabi, asserting that the therapy is unavailable in India.
  • Respondent’s Position: No substantive objection to travel, but requested safeguards – copy of passport, visa, tickets, and post‑treatment prescription, plus an affidavit/undertaking.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Special Court erred in rejecting the petition on the basis that no qualified Indian doctor recommended KKT, that the medical documents did not prove exclusivity of the foreign treatment, and that the petitioner had previously sought travel for his son’s treatment. The High Court emphasized the serious nature of the money‑laundering charges, the petitioner’s substantial financial resources, and the risk of flight, noting that equivalent medical facilities exist in India. The court cited precedents (e.g., Parvin Juneja v. ED, Directorate of Enforcement v. Jatinder Pal Singh) and held that personal liberty to travel must be balanced against the state’s interest in an uninterrupted trial.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the CRMP, upheld the Special Court’s order, and denied permission for Agrawal to travel abroad for medical treatment. The petitioner’s request was rejected as not establishing an exceptional, bonafide case of medical exigency outweighing the state’s interest.

Topics: Legal, Medical Travel, Money Laundering