Madras High Court
Karthik Parthiban vs The Superintendent Of Police, on 17 July, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01-06-2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
and
W.P.M.P.Crl.No.289 of 2026
Karthik Parthiban ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Bank Securities and Frauds Branch,
No.36, Bellary Road, Ganga Nagar,
Bangalore - 32.
2.Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO)
Bureau of Immigration,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to travel abroad 20 working days a month.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases) for R1
Page No.1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in Crime No.9 of 2018, in which a charge sheet
has been filed in C.C.No.08 of 2022 against the petitioner and others for
offences under Sections 120-B read with 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Thereafter, further investigation is in progress.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s name was not
found in F.I.R. No.9, dated 13.04.2018, filed by the first respondent. It is
submitted that subsequently, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated
24.12.2022, was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, BSFC, Bangalore,
before the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for
the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Sections
120-B read with 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. He further submitted that a notice
dated 10.04.2023, under Section 160 Cr.P.C., was sent to him directing him to
appear before the first respondent, Central Bureau of Investigation, BSFC,
Bangalore, on 17.04.2023 to answer certain questions in connection with the
investigation in R.C.9(E) of 2018.
3. The petitioner landed at Chennai International Airport on 09.04.2023.
To his shock and surprise, he was informed by the Airport Authority Officials
that a “Look Out Circular” (LOC) had been issued against him by the first
Page No.2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
respondent. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent on 24.04.2023
and was co-operating with the investigation.
4. The petitioner has business interests abroad and earlier filed four writ
petitions, namely, (i) W.P.No.15517 of 2023, (ii) W.P.No.28915 of 2023, (iii)
W.P.No.24906 of 2024, and (iv) W.P.No.13960 of 2026, by which he was
permitted to travel abroad with certain conditions.
5. Over the past several years, the petitioner transitioned into rapidly
evolving health technology sector, providing advisory services to several
companies, engaged in AI-driven diagnostics, remote patient monitoring, and
digital health infrastructure. His current focus is on under served health care
systems in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, where health-tech adoption is
accelerating in response to the growing demand for scalable and
cost-effective health care delivery.
6. Due to the condition and restrictions imposed, the petitioner unable to
complete his tasks during foreign travel. He further referred to the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.18754 of 2026, relating to the co-accused, one
S.Saravana, wherein this Court, by order dated 25.06.2026, permitted him to
travel for 10 days subject to the following conditions:
(a) As required by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to
travel to other countries for 10 days in every month.
Page No.3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
(b) The petitioner is permitted to travel to countries where
there is reciprocal arrangements and extradition arrangements
alone and not to other countries.
(c) The petitioner should furnish the reason and specific date of
his travel, his travel itinerary, place of stay, contact details and
he shall be accessible through e-mail and other modes of
communications and the contact details of the persons/places
in the visiting country.
(d) The petitioner shall file an affidavit providing his proposed
date of foreign travel to the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, and to the Investigating
Agency at whose request the LOC was issued.
(e) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and produce two
sureties for Rs.10,00,000/- each before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. Of the two sureties,
one must be a relative. The two sureties should file separate
affidavits before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Chennai, undertaking that the petitioner will return to
India on or before the date of return as per the schedule to be
provided by petitioner.
(f) One of the sureties (either a relative or a business associate of
the petitioner) must possess a valid Indian passport and have
traveled abroad at least a couple of times. The said surety shall
deposit the original passport before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, at the time of travel of
the petitioner. Upon the of petitioner, the passport shall be
handed back to the surety.
(g) The Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the CBI against the
petitioner shall stand suspended during the period when the
petitioner leaves India in the manner as stated above and til he
returns back to India.
7. The same benefit may be extended to the petitioner permitting him to
travel for a period of 15 days without date restriction, as the petitioner is
required to undertake immediate foreign travel for 15 days on any part of a
month.
Page No.4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
8.The learned Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the
petitioner’s contention and filed a counter, which is as follows –
6) That, the petitioner is a Seychelles National and
Director of M/s.BroadCourt Investments Ltd (A-2). The
petitioner along with another Director, Shri C.Sivasankaran
(A-12) who was also the Chairman of Siva Group had opened
a Current Account in the name of A-2 Company bearing
A/c.No.9001103000001601 in IDBI Bank Ltd, Dubai
International Financial Branch, Dubai on 24.03.2014 just two
days prior to the disbursement of loan to M/s.ASL (A-1)
without fully complying the KYC Norms. Out of the
sanctioned loan of USD 83 Million, USD 67 Million was
disbursed to M/s.ASL (A-1) on 26.03.2014. On the same day
the entire amount of USD 67 Million was transferred by the
Director (A-13) of M/s.ASL (A-1) to the account of
petitioner’s Company A-2 for the purpose of Palm Business.
On receipt of the said amount of USD 67 Million into the
account of A-2 Company, the petitioner has diverted the entire
amount USD 67 Million to other companies without utilizing
it for the stated purpose.
9) That the averments made in Paras 5&7 are true.
However, the investigation in the said case has disclosed the
role of the petitioner in diversion of loan proceeds of
M/s.Axel Sunshine Ltd (A-1) received into the account of his
company M/s.Broadcourt Investments Ltd (A-2) as narrated
supra. Look Out Circular was opened against the petitioner to
prevent him from leaving the country. The petitioner was not
traceable during the investigation, hence charge sheet was not
earlier filed against him but further investigation was kept
open under section 173(8)Cr.P.C. Also, there is no provision
for providing information to the LOC subject regarding
opening of a Look Out Circular.
12) It is respectfully submitted that the averments made
in Para 11 to 15 are submissions of the petitioner. That, the
petitioner is a Seychelles National and his parents are settled
in Malaysia and he is working in Singapore. Under these
circumstances, there is all likelihood that the petitioner being
Page No.5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
an Overseas Citizen of India and well settled in abroad, may
permanently escape the judicial process in India. The accused
applicant is involved in a massive economic fraud to the tune
of Rs.600.00 Crores by defrauding IDBI Bank Ltd. Further,
the public faith in the system will erode if such economic
offenders are allowed to leave country when there is an
apprehension that once he leaves the country, there is every
possibility that he may not return to the country to face the
trial as he is not an Indian National. Such a move will badly
protract the process of law in such serious economic frauds.
14) It is respectfully submitted that in the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.27856 of 2024 filed by
C.Sivasankaran (A-12), reserved on 04December 2024 and
pronounced on 21December 2024, it is explicitly provided in
paragraph 18(f) that the petitioner shall not travel abroad
during the dates when any of the co-accused in any of the
cases in which he is also an accused are themselves foreign
nationals, travelled abroad. Further, in W.P.No.18754 of 2026
dated 25.06.2026 this Court allowed S.Saravana (FIR A-14)
to travel abroad for 10 days in one month except the countries
where reciprocal arrangement and extradition arrangement is
not with India. He is also a Seychelles National.
15. That in the instant case, Shri.C.Sivasankaran
(A-12) who is charge-sheeted in the case and happens to be
the maternal uncle of the petitioner, is also a Seychelles
national. Likewise, Shri.S.Saravana and the petitioner are
Seychelles nationals with which India does not have
extraction treaty. If petitioner is permitted to travel abroad for
15 working days each month, it would adversely affect the
proceedings in the Trial Court as well as further investigation.
16. In view of the above submissions, the case is on
pre-charge stage with further investigation ongoing. There are
substantial grounds to apprehend that, if such travel is
permitted freely, the accused may abscond from the
jurisdiction of Trial Court and will cause undue delays in
finding role of the petitioner in the further investigation.
Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed in limine.
Page No.6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
9. It is seen that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition in
W.P.Crl.No.607 of 2025 and this Court, by order dated 10.09.2025, permitted
the petitioner to travel abroad subject to certain conditions. The petitioner, due
to his ongoing business commitments, now seeks permission to travel abroad
for period of 15 days every month. Accordingly, permission is granted to the
petitioner to travel for 15 days, subject to the following conditions:
(a) As required by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted
to travel to other countries for 15 days in every month.
(b) The petitioner is permitted to travel to countries where
there is reciprocal arrangements and extradition arrangements
alone and not to other countries.
(c) The petitioner should furnish the reason and specific date of
his travel, his travel itinerary, place of stay, contact details and
he shall be accessible through e-mail and other modes of
communications and the contact details of the persons/places
in the visiting country.
(d) The petitioner shall file an affidavit providing his proposed
date of foreign travel to the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, and to the Investigating
Agency at whose request the LOC was issued.
(e) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and produce two
sureties for Rs.10,00,000/- each before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. Out of the two
sureties, one must be a relative. The two sureties should file
separate affidavits before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Chennai, undertaking that the petitioner will
return to India on or before the date of return as per the
schedule to be provided by petitioner.
(f) One of the sureties (either a relative or a business associate
of the petitioner) must possess a valid Indian passport and
have traveled abroad at least a couple of times. The said surety
Page No.7 of 15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026shall deposit the original passport before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, at the time of travel
of the petitioner. Upon the of petitioner, the passport shall be
handed back to the surety.
(g) The Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the CBI against
the petitioner shall stand suspended during the period when the
petitioner leaves India in the manner as stated above and til he
returns back to India.
10. Once the petitioner complies with these conditions for the first
time, the requirement relating to execution of a bond for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- and the production of two sureties shall continue for all
subsequent travels and need not be repeated each time. In the event of
any difficulty faced by the petitioner in complying with the conditions,
or any difficulty or apprehension raised by the respondent investigating
agency with reference to the conditions, both parties are at liberty to
approach this Court and seek modification.
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
01-06-2026
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Lpp
Page No.8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Bank Securities and Frauds Branch,
No.36, Bellary Road, Ganga Nagar,
Bangalore – 32.
2.Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO)
Bureau of Immigration,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page No.9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
LPP
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
01-06-2026
Page No.10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.289 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Today the matter is listed under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ at the
instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this
Court that the typographical errors have crept into Paragraph Nos.1, 4, 6, 8 (14)
and 9 (f) and (g) of the order dated 01.06.2026 made in W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026.
3. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Paragraph Nos.1, 4, 6, 8 (14) and 9 (f) and (g) of the order dated 01.06.2026
made in W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026, shall be read as follows :
“The petitioner/accused in Crime No.9 of 2018, in which a
charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.554 of 2023 against the
petitioner and others for offences under Sections 120-B read with
409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Thereafter, further investigation is in progress.
4. The petitioner has business interests abroad and earlier
filed four writ petitions, namely, (i) W.P.No.15517 of 2023, (ii)
W.P.No.28915 of 2023, (iii) W.P.No.24906 of 2024, and (iv)
Page No.11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
W.P.No.13960 of 2025, by which he was permitted to travel abroad
with certain conditions.
6. Due to the condition and restrictions imposed, the
petitioner unable to complete his tasks during foreign travel. He
further referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18754
of 2025, relating to the co-accused, one S.Saravana, wherein this
Court, by order dated 25.06.2025, permitted him to travel for 10
days subject to the following conditions:
(a) As required by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to
travel to other countries for 10 days in every month.
(b) The petitioner is permitted to travel to countries where there
is reciprocal arrangements and extradition arrangements alone
and not to other countries.
(c) The petitioner should furnish the reason and specific date of
his travel, his travel itinerary, place of stay, contact details and
he shall be accessible through e-mail and other modes of
communications and the contact details of the persons/places in
the visiting country.
(d) The petitioner shall file an affidavit providing his proposed
date of foreign travel to the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, and to the Investigating
Agency at whose request the LOC was issued.
(e) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and produce two
sureties for Rs.10,00,000/- each before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. Of the two sureties,
one must be a relative. The two sureties should file separate
affidavits before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Chennai, undertaking that the petitioner will return to
India on or before the date of return as per the schedule to be
provided by petitioner.
(f) One of the sureties (either a relative or a business associate
of the petitioner) must possess a valid Indian passport and have
traveled abroad at least a couple of times. The said surety shall
deposit the original passport before the Additional Chief
Page No.12 of 15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, at the time of travel of
the petitioner. Upon the of petitioner, the passport shall be
handed back to the surety.
(g) The Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the CBI against the
petitioner shall stand suspended during the period when the
petitioner leaves India in the manner as stated above and til he
returns back to India.
8.The learned Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) strongly
opposed the petitioner’s contention and filed a counter, which is as
follows –
14) It is respectfully submitted that in the order passed by
this Court in W.P.No.27856 of 2024 filed by C.Sivasankaran
(A-12), reserved on 04December 2024 and pronounced on
21December 2024, it is explicitly provided in paragraph 18(f)
that the petitioner shall not travel abroad during the dates when
any of the co-accused in any of the cases in which he is also an
accused are themselves foreign nationals, travelled abroad.
Further, in W.P.No.18754 of 2025 dated 25.06.2025 this Court
allowed S.Saravana (FIR A-14) to travel abroad for 10 days in
one month except the countries where reciprocal arrangement
and extradition arrangement is not with India. He is also a
Seychelles National.
9. It is seen that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition in
W.P.Crl.No.607 of 2025 and this Court, by order dated 10.09.2025,
permitted the petitioner to travel abroad subject to certain
conditions. The petitioner, due to his ongoing business
commitments, now seeks permission to travel abroad for period of
15 days every month. Accordingly, permission is granted to the
petitioner to travel for 15 days, subject to the following conditions:
(f) One of the sureties (either a relative or a business associate
of the petitioner) must possess a valid Indian passport and have
traveled abroad at least a couple of times. The said surety shall
Page No.13 of 15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026deposit the original passport before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, at the time of travel of
the petitioner. Upon the return of petitioner, the passport shall
be handed back to the surety.
(g) The Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the CBI against the
petitioner shall stand suspended during the period when the
petitioner leaves India in the manner as stated above and till he
returns back to India.”.
4. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the
order dated 01.06.2026 made in W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026 and issue a fresh order
copy accordingly.
17.07.2026
dm
Page No.14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dm
W.P.Crl.No.854 of 2026
and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.289 of 2026
17.07.2026
Page No.15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
