In a landmark decision that has sent ripples through the financial‑fraud litigation landscape, a special court in Mumbai on January 19, 2026 granted Farid Hamid Sama—an accused in the Rs 4,733‑crore Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) fraud case—travel permission to attend a business conference in Davos, Switzerland, and subsequent meetings in Paris and London. The ruling, which replaced Sama’s “flight‑risk” status with a temporary passport exemption, underscores a growing trend of courts balancing the accused’s fundamental rights against the gravity of the alleged offenses.
Background and Context
The DHFL scam, one of India’s largest financial frauds, has implicated 32 individuals, including Sama, who is currently based in Dubai. The case, which involves a staggering Rs 34,000 crore loss to investors, has been under the scrutiny of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In the wake of the pandemic, courts have increasingly faced petitions from accused persons seeking to travel abroad for business, family, or leisure purposes, prompting a debate over the extent to which the right to travel can be curtailed during pending investigations.
Historically, the Indian judiciary has upheld the right to travel abroad as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). However, the courts have also imposed stringent safeguards—such as indemnity bonds, detailed itineraries, and real‑time contact updates—to mitigate flight risk. The current decision reflects this delicate equilibrium.
Key Developments
On January 19, 2026, the special court, presided over by Justice R. K. Sharma, issued an order allowing Sama to travel from January 20 to 27, 2026. The order specifically permits:
- Attendance at the World Economic Forum (WEF) conference in Davos, Switzerland.
- Business meetings in Paris, France.
- A brief visit to London, United Kingdom, to meet his daughter for documentation purposes.
Justice Sharma justified the decision by emphasizing that Sama’s travel is “essential for his professional obligations” and that “no prejudice will be caused to the interests of justice.” He noted that Sama has consistently complied with prior bail conditions and that the trial has not yet commenced, thereby reducing the likelihood of absconding.
In contrast, the CBI’s petition argued that frequent international travel by a high‑profile accused could undermine the integrity of the judicial process. The prosecution highlighted that Sama’s travel itinerary included multiple countries within a short span, raising concerns about potential flight risk and the possibility of tampering with evidence.
Notably, the court’s decision aligns with a broader pattern observed in recent months:
- In the Yes Bank PMLA case, 30 out of 34 orders in 2025 granted travel permission to accused individuals for business or personal reasons.
- In the NSEL scam, several accused have sought hybrid itineraries combining business and tourism across the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Europe.
- High‑profile political figures, such as former NCP minister Chhagan Bhujbal, have also been granted travel permissions for family holidays, despite ongoing investigations.
These precedents illustrate the judiciary’s willingness to accommodate travel requests when the accused demonstrates compliance and when the alleged offenses, while serious, do not pose an immediate flight risk.
Impact Analysis
For students and young professionals studying law, finance, or public policy, the ruling offers several practical insights:
- Understanding Judicial Discretion: Courts exercise discretion in balancing fundamental rights against public interest. The decision underscores that the right to travel is not absolute but can be curtailed only with compelling evidence of flight risk.
- Role of Bail Conditions: The case highlights how bail conditions—such as travel restrictions—are enforceable yet can be modified through judicial orders if the accused meets the criteria of compliance and necessity.
- Implications for Corporate Governance: The DHFL scam’s magnitude and the court’s leniency towards travel may influence corporate governance reforms, prompting companies to strengthen internal controls to avoid similar allegations.
- Legal Precedents: The ruling may serve as a reference point for future cases involving travel permissions for accused persons, especially in financial fraud and money‑laundering contexts.
For the general public, the decision raises questions about the fairness of allowing accused individuals to travel abroad while investigations are ongoing. It also highlights the need for transparent judicial processes to maintain public trust.
Expert Insights and Practical Tips
Legal scholars and industry experts have weighed in on the implications of the ruling. Dr. Anjali Verma, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Delhi, remarked:
“The court’s decision reflects a nuanced application of Article 21. While the right to travel is protected, the judiciary must ensure that it does not become a loophole for accused persons to evade scrutiny. The inclusion of indemnity bonds and real‑time monitoring is a prudent measure.”
From a practical standpoint, individuals—whether accused or not—should consider the following when dealing with travel permissions in legal contexts:
- Document All Travel Purposes: Clearly articulate the business or personal reasons for travel, supported by official invitations, contracts, or family documentation.
- Provide Detailed Itineraries: Courts are more likely to grant permission when a comprehensive travel schedule is presented, including flight details, accommodation, and contact information.
- Offer Security Deposits: A bond or security deposit (typically ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh) can mitigate concerns about flight risk.
- Maintain Transparency: Regular updates to the court or the investigating agency about travel status can build trust and reduce the likelihood of denial.
- Seek Legal Counsel: Engaging a lawyer experienced in criminal and constitutional law can help navigate the procedural nuances and present a compelling case to the court.
For students, understanding these procedural safeguards is essential when preparing for careers in legal practice, compliance, or corporate governance.
Looking Ahead
The DHFL case is far from over. The trial is scheduled to commence in the coming months, and the court’s decision may set a precedent for how travel permissions are handled in other high‑profile financial fraud cases. Key developments to watch include:
- The court’s stance on future travel requests by Sama and other accused individuals as the trial progresses.
- Potential amendments to bail conditions that could impose stricter travel restrictions or higher security deposits.
- Judicial commentary on the balance between fundamental rights and the need to prevent absconding in cases involving large financial losses.
- Policy discussions at the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India regarding corporate governance reforms to curb similar frauds.
As the legal community observes the unfolding of this case, it is likely that courts will continue to refine the criteria for granting travel permissions, ensuring that the right to travel does not undermine the administration of justice.
Reach out to us for personalized consultation based on your specific requirements.
