The Delhi High Court has permitted Vivo Finance Director Harinder Dahiya to travel to Bangkok for four days, suspending the lookout circular against him for that period and imposing conditions to secure his return.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has allowed Senior Director (Finance and Accounts) of Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, Harinder Dahiya, to travel to Bangkok, Thailand, from October 12 to October 15, 2026, in a money laundering case being pursued by the Directorate of Enforcement, and has suspended the lookout circular (LOC) against him for the duration of the trip [Harinder Dahiya v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another].
Justice Sachin Datta allowed the writ petition in part by an order dated October 6, 2026, which was uploaded on October 7. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Shri Singh with a team of counsel, the Enforcement Directorate by Vivek Gurnani, Kanishk Maurya and Ch. Abhinandan Patra, and the Union of India by Ripu Daman Bharadwaj, Central Government Standing Counsel.
The case
Dahiya sought permission to travel to Bangkok for official meetings on statutory audit, audit transformation, litigation and business and finance strategy. A direction of this Court dated January 3, 2024, passed in Crl.M.C. No. 1/2024, does not bar him from travelling abroad outright but requires prior permission of the Court.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the plea. It alleges that the petitioner played a significant role in the alleged siphoning of proceeds of crime of about Rs 20,241 crore, argued that the meetings could be held virtually, and relied on an order dated July 9, 2026 refusing similar permission to a co-accused, Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew Kuang. These are the agency’s allegations, which are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case. The presumption of innocence applies.
What the Court said
The Court began from the constitutional position that travel abroad is part of personal liberty.
“There is no dispute that the right to travel abroad forms part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
On the co-accused’s case, Justice Datta found that the earlier order did not help the agency.
“The order dated 09.07.2026 in the case of Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew Kuang does not assist respondent no.1, since the said order (i) rested on his foreign nationality; and (ii) the absence of an extradition treaty with China.”
The Court noted that Dahiya is an Indian citizen with family and assets in the country and has complied with the conditions imposed on him for about three years, and held that any condition on travel must bear a proportional relationship to its purpose.
The conditions
Dahiya may travel to Bangkok from October 12 to 15, 2026, on the following terms: he must give an undertaking to return by October 15; deposit the original title documents of his immovable assets with the High Court Registry; furnish his itinerary, flight details and contact details in Thailand to the investigating officer; report his return within 24 hours and re-deposit his passport; and not contact witnesses or tamper with evidence. He must also remain available for hearings before the trial court.
The LOC stands suspended only for the travel period and revives automatically after October 15. The matter will next be heard on January 14, 2027.
Why the order matters
The order applies a settled idea: a person facing a serious economic offence case is still free to travel unless the restriction is shown to be necessary and proportionate. The Court did not treat the size of the alleged proceeds, or the agency’s preference for virtual meetings, as a reason to refuse permission to a citizen with a clean compliance record.
It also shows how courts calibrate such permissions: a short, defined window, security in the form of title documents, reporting duties and an LOC that revives on its own, rather than a blanket refusal.
Case Title: Harinder Dahiya v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another [W.P.(CRL) 953/2026]
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Shri Singh with V. P. Singh, Priyank Ladoia, Kshitiz Rao, Arjun Narang, Puneet Dhanoa and Ananya Singh (Petitioner); Vivek Gurnani, Kanishk Maurya and Ch. Abhinandan Patra (Enforcement Directorate); Ripu Daman Bharadwaj, CGSC (Union of India)