In a ruling delivered on October 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court allowed a senior finance executive of Vivo India to travel to Bangkok for four days, holding that a look-out circular (a watch list that stops a person from leaving the country) cannot be used as an absolute ban on travel. The decision affects every person facing criminal proceedings who has been told to deposit their passport.
The case is Harinder Dahiya v. Directorate of Enforcement, W.P.(CRL) 953/2026, decided by Justice Sachin Datta. The full citation is DHC/W.P.(CRL) 953/2026/06-10-2026. The court’s core reasoning (the ratio decidendi) is that the right to travel is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction must be proportionate to the need to secure the accused’s presence at trial.
Why the Delhi High Court Allowed the Trip
The petitioner, Harinder Dahiya, is a Senior Director of Finance and Accounts at Vivo Mobile India Private Limited. He was arrested on December 21, 2023, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). A vacation judge later declared that arrest illegal and released him on conditions: he must not leave India without permission and must deposit his passport, which he did on January 2, 2024.
On January 3, 2024, the High Court had directed that he seek prior permission for any foreign travel. That direction, the court now clarifies, was never an absolute embargo. It was a safeguard to ensure he showed up for proceedings.
Dahiya sought to go to Bangkok from October 12 to 15, 2026, for official meetings on statutory audit matters, audit and control transformation, litigation, and business and finance strategy. He applied for permission, release of his passport, and suspension of the look-out circular during that period.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) objected. It argued that Dahiya, as Director and CFO of Vivo India, played a key role in alleged siphoning of proceeds of crime worth about Rs. 20,241 crores. The ED said meetings could be attended virtually and pointed out that another accused, Guangwen Kuang (also known as Andrew Kuang), had been denied travel permission on July 9, 2026.
Justice Datta rejected these arguments. The court noted that Dahiya is an Indian citizen with his family, home, employment, and assets in India. His compliance record with ED summons over roughly three years was unblemished. He had appeared before the agency on 139 occasions in total, including 13 times before his arrest.
The court distinguished the co-accused’s case. Guangwen Kuang’s application was dismissed because he is a foreign national and because India has no extradition treaty with China. Dahiya, by contrast, is an Indian national travelling to Thailand, so his case stands on a different footing.
What the Court Said About the Look-Out Circular
The court relied on Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right. It also cited Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77, a case relied on by the ED itself.
“The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial.”
The court applied that principle to Dahiya. His trip was short, just four days, and was for his employment. His absence, he argued, would hurt his livelihood. The liberty to travel had to be tested on one question: can his presence be secured in the ongoing criminal proceedings? The court found it could.
The petitioner also handed over a list of his unencumbered immovable assets and offered to deposit them as security. That offer, while not quoted in full in the order excerpt, signals the court’s balancing approach: allow the trip but keep the accused anchored to the trial through conditions.
The court was careful to note that the January 3, 2024 direction “operates as a safeguard to secure the Petitioner’s availability during the pendency of the proceedings and cannot, by itself, be construed as an absolute embargo on travel.” That sentence is the heart of the ruling. It means a look-out circular or a passport deposit order is not a life sentence on movement.
Why This Matters for Ordinary People
For anyone facing criminal charges, a passport deposit order often feels like house arrest. You can live in India, but you cannot leave. If your job requires foreign travel, you lose it. If your family lives abroad, you cannot visit. The Delhi High Court’s ruling says that is not the automatic outcome. Courts must weigh the risk of you fleeing against the harm of keeping you stuck.
The decision also clarifies the law on look-out circulars. These are issued by agencies to stop a person from leaving India. They are administrative tools, not judicial punishments. The court’s insistence on proportionality means an LOC cannot be a permanent travel ban without a judge reviewing it.
For companies like Vivo India, the ruling offers practical relief. Key employees under investigation can still attend foreign board meetings, audits, and strategy sessions if they show a clean compliance record and strong ties to India. The court looked at Dahiya’s family, home, job, and assets. Those are the factors that will decide future cases.
The ruling arrives amid heavy ED scrutiny of foreign smartphone makers in India. The agency’s allegation of Rs. 20,241 crores in siphoned proceeds is one of the largest in recent memory. Yet the court separated the seriousness of the allegation from the question of temporary travel. That separation is important. It means the gravity of the crime does not automatically justify every restriction.
The court granted permission subject to certain conditions, which are not detailed in the available order text. But the direction is clear: Dahiya can go to Bangkok from October 12 to 15, 2026, and the look-out circular will be suspended for that window. His passport must be released for the trip and likely returned afterward.
For property law watchers, this case is a reminder that personal liberty and property rights often intersect. Dahiya’s offer to pledge his unencumbered immovable assets shows how real estate can be used as collateral for freedom of movement. Under the Transfer of Property Act and related laws, such pledges are a common way to assure courts of an accused’s presence.
The broader takeaway is simple. A look-out circular is not a wall. It is a gate that a judge can open for good reason. The Delhi High Court has now given a reasoned framework for when that gate should open: Indian citizenship, family and assets in India, a clean compliance record, a short trip, and a job that depends on it.
That framework will now guide trial courts in similar applications. The order is a win for procedural fairness, and a warning to agencies that administrative convenience cannot trump constitutional rights.