Traveling abroad is an integral part of fundamental rights, a Delhi court said, allowing a woman accused of money laundering to visit Thailand due to her children’s ongoing summer vacation.
Leave judge Rajesh Malik was hearing the application of Reena Goel, an accused in the case in which shops in Delhi’s Karol Bagh market area belonging to the Shree Raj Mahal Jewelers Group were included under the Anti-Money Laundering Act as part of the investigation into a multi-crore bank loan scam.
According to the Enforcement Directorate, the properties are owned by Ginni Gold Private Limited and its directors and promoters Ginni Devi and Reena Goel.
In her application, Goel was granted bail in December 2025 on the condition that she cannot leave the country without prior permission from the court. But she wanted to travel to Thailand for her children’s summer vacation from June 25 to July 2.
In an order dated July 19, the court said it needed to balance the accused’s right to travel abroad with the reasons for denying such permission.
“The fundamental and most compelling reason for denial is that there is a credible fear that she will escape justice. Such fears can be shown either by evidence or can be gathered by drawing inferences from other facts,” the court said.
But she said that the Executive Directorate did not show any evidence or facts proving that she might evade justice.
“It is not that she is making investments in foreign countries to settle abroad. Just being an accused is not enough to prevent her from traveling abroad.
“Furthermore, there are a large number of judgments of the Constitutional Courts of India, thereby recognizing that foreign travel is an integral part of the fundamental right under Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution,” the court said.
It then allowed the application, subject to several conditions such as submitting an FDR certificate $10,000, not tampering with evidence, not requesting an extension of stay and submitting a detailed itinerary.
The court said that her lawyer would not be postponed due to her absence.
