Bombay High Court
ANAND AMARLAL THAKURversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court modified the order, extending the travel period to six months, waiving the additional deposit, suspending the lookout circular, and imposing video‑conferencing conditions for any charge framing.
Summary
The applicant, Anand Amarlal Thakur, filed an application seeking modification of a Special Court order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 that permitted him to travel abroad for only one month. He argued that his professional commitments, family circumstances, and his minor son's schooling required a longer stay in Australia, where he holds citizenship. The court examined the material placed on record, including the applicant’s contract with Taxsight Pty Limited and prior cash deposits made at bail. Finding the request prima facie genuine, the court extended the permitted travel period to six months (01.10.2026 to 31.03.2027), waived the additional cash deposit of Rs.2,00,000, and altered related dates and conditions. It also ordered that any charge framing during the travel be attended via video‑conferencing and that the lookout circular against the applicant be suspended for six months. The application was allowed and the modified order was issued.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Court's order allowing travel abroad for one month should be modified to a longer period under the PMLA.
- Whether the additional cash deposit directed by the original order can be waived in view of earlier deposits.
- Whether the lookout circular against the applicant should be suspended during the extended travel period.
- What procedural conditions should apply if charges are framed while the applicant is abroad.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- travel abroad
- bail conditions
- lookout circular
- video conferencing
- court order modification
- cash deposit waiver
Judgment
6.APL.1742.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1742 OF 2026
Anand Amarlal Thakur .. Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Priyanka K. Dubey a/w. Mr. Utkarsh M. Shukla, Advocates i/by
Hedgehog & Fox LLP for Applicant.
Mr. Chaitnya Pendse, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
PC – 3711 – Ramesh Nana Tayade, EOW Thane City.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Dubey, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Pendse, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.
2. The Applicant has filed the present Application seeking
modification of the order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, namely the Special Court under the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 in PMLA Special Case No.1082 of 2021. I
have heard the submissions made by Ms. Dubey.
3. It is prima facie seen that Applicant is a professional involved
in business development activities, institutional engagement,
technology coordination, software integration discussions, etc. and he
is also having a contract with a Company called Taxsight Pty Limited,
which is of fixed term for which he is required to travel abroad and
1 of 4
6.APL.1742.2026.doc
more specifically to Australia because he is having Australian
citizenship. His entire family including children live in Australia.
4. There is substantial material which is prima facie placed on
record by the Applicant under the Memorandum of Grounds in the
Application which when read and juxtaposed with the material placed
on record, prima facie shows that the Applicant’s travel abroad is for
his career prospects as also for the purpose of his genuine family
circumstances as well as to attend the welfare and schooling of his
minor son as well as with regard to remaining in attendance for his
wife’s citizenship which is all required to done and therefore, he had
made an Application to travel to Australia for six months.
5. The learned Special Court has allowed the said Application,
albeit for a short duration of one month only. After hearing the
submissions and the material placed on record, I am inclined to
consider the request made by the Applicant as I find the said request to
be prima facie genuine in nature. The order dated 24.08.2026 shall
therefore stand modified as under:-
(i) Clause No.2 of the operative part of the order is deleted
shall be substituted and read as follows:-
“The Applicant - Shri Anand Amarlal Thakur is
permitted to travel abroad to Australia from 01.10.2026
to 31.03.2027.”
2 of 4
6.APL.1742.2026.doc
(ii) Consequently, the dates in Clause No.3 are substituted
and will be read as follows: “01.10.2026 to
31.03.2027”.
(iii) In so far as Clause No.6 is concerned, Ms. Dubey
informs Court that at the time of bail, the Applicant had
deposited Rs.3,00,000/- and at earlier point of time
when he was allowed to travel abroad, he had made a
deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore the deposit of
Rs.2,00,000/- which is directed by the impugned order
be waived. In view of this above, Clause No.6 stands
deleted and no deposit is required to be made in view of
earlier deposits.
(iv) In so far as Clause Nos.7 and 8 are concerned, the date
‘23.10.2026’ therein shall be substituted and read as
‘05.04.2027’.
6. The rest of the clauses of the operative part of the order and
the entire order shall remain the same. In addition thereto that at the
request of Mr. Pendse, a further condition is added stating that if the
Special Court frames the charge, in the interregnum, then the
Applicant shall remain present through Video Conferencing for the
purpose of framing the charge and after he returns, he shall sign the
said charge which has been framed in accordance with law.
3 of 4
6.APL.1742.2026.doc
7. Needless to state that at least 2 weeks’ notice shall be given
to the Applicant by the prosecution to remain present through Video
Conferencing about the date of his appearance for framing of charge, if
it is so done. Further the Advocate for the Applicant shall ensure that
he/she shall remain present before the Special Court if the charge is
framed at any point of time, representing the Applicant in Court as also
on all dates of hearing.
8. Needless to further state that the Advocate for the Applicant
shall not seek any adjournment before the Special Court.
9. This order shall be served forthwith by the Investigating
Agency on the Immigration Department to ensure that the lookout
circular qua the present Applicant stands suspended for a period of six
months as stated in this order and the Applicant shall not be detained
and arrested at the airport by the Immigration Officer on the basis of
the said LOC. This is made very clear.
10. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.30
10:58:13 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.