Satyan Kasturi v. The Superintendent of Police

O R D E R The petitioner/A7, who is facing trial in C.C.No.8793 of 2022 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, had filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to travel from Chennai to Sri Lanka from

08.07.2026 to 28.07.2026 by considering the petitioners representation dated

0.107.2026.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is an Indian citizen by birth and he acquired Australian citizenship in the 1990's holding a valid overseas citizen of India card. Since 2014 he has been residing in the defense officer's colony, Chennai with his family, his wife and two sons. The petitioner's wife owns a MSME, employing 18 full time staff, his elder son just finished 12th standard and his younger son is in 6th standard studying at Padma Seshadri School. The petitioner's elder son secured admission in West Australian State University and University of Sydney in Australia. The petitioner's mother is aged 76 years and staying in Unites States with his sister. Petitioner in the year 2018 came back from Australia, to meet his aged and sickly father, who passed away in the year 2020 during the Covid pandemic period. The petitioner was visiting Australia and USA till January 2020 in connection with his business as well as in connection with visiting his sister and other family members. Due to Covid pandemic, petitioner's health got deteriorated and further his business had a downslide. In the meanwhile, CBI registered a case in F.I.R. No.RC MA1/2019/A0018 dated 23.12.2019 against the petitioner and ten others for not making proper repayment for the loan availed from State Bank of India and a case under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3.The further contention of the learned counsel is that initially, the case was registered against 18 persons including bank officials and company Directors. At that time, LOC was issued. The petitioner was sanctioned term loan for a sum of Rs.35.70 Crores by State Bank of Hyderabad, Thousand Lights Branch and as per the banking arrangement, 3 Wind Mills situated at Idaikal Village,Tirunelveli worth about Rs.8.37 crores belonging to M/s.PPS Enviro Power Pvt. Ltd. was given as security. Thereafter, the projected business could not be reached for various reasons. Hence there was delay in repayment of loan amount. On conclusion of investigation, bank officials and public servants deleted and charge sheet was filed against private persons/A1 to A11, with the petitioner arrayed as A7. When the petitioner attempted to visit Australia for business and family interest, he was detained in the Airport citing LOC. The petitioner was informed that once the charge sheet gets filed and bail bond is executed by the petitioner before the trial Court, the LOC notice shall cease to exists. In fact, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3970 of 2020 before this Court challenging the LOC and this Court by an order dated

21.02.2020 dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner submits that one of his long time business associates namely Mr. Thomas had invited the petitioner for his daughter's marriage, which is scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka between 10.07.2026 and 13.07.2026. He further submitted that the case in | C.C.No.8793 of 2022 was filed on 29.08.2022 and taken on file on

01.09.2022 and the petitioner has been appearing before the trial Court regularly in person and through his counsel. So far the trial has not progressed Hence, the petitioner has now filed this petition seeking permission to travel abroad.

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed his counter and submitted that A5, A6, A7/petitioner and A8 are Managing Directors, who were managing company's day-to-day affairs. M/s.Connect Wind (India) Private Ltd. availed term loan from the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.35.70 Crores and thereafter defaulted in making payment and when properties were to be attached, it was found the value as projected were inflated. Hence, the case was registered. The bank had taken initiative and filed a case with the Company Law Tribunal. He further submitted that the petitioner had made two attempts to escape from the country on 23.02.2020 and on 20.06.2024. Further when the petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 13.02.2020 and 14.02.2020, he was informed that he cannot leave the country since the second respondent had written to the third and fourth respondents preventing the petitioner from leaving India. Despite specific instructions preventing the petitioner from travelling to foreign countries, he had attempted to escape from the country. Now charges are yet to be framed before the trial Court, despite the charge sheet being filed as early as in the year 2022. He further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, there is every possibility of petitioner absconding and the framing of charges would further get delayed. Hence, he sought for appropriate condition to be imposed ensuring the petitioner's presence before the trial Court and the petitioner's submission not to be a reason for any delay in progress of trial.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the trial Court personally and through his counsel and the petitioner is not the reason for any delay. He further submitted that in this case co-accused/A8 filed Crl.R.C.No.68 of 2025 before the Principal District Court and obtained a stay of trial. Hence, only after disposal of Crl.R.C.No.68 of 2025 there might be any requirement for the appearance of the petitioner. He further undertakes that he will not be a reason for any delay and he will appear before the trial Court personally or in exigency, he will appear through virtual mode for charge framing. He will file an affidavit giving his travel itinerary.

6.On perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case the respondents 3, 4 and 5 are formal parties, who were acting on the request of the second respondent in issuance of LOC placed restrictions on the petitioner's movement out of India. Since now the originator for LOC, the second respondent is heard of his objections, this Court finds that the notice to the respondents 3, 4 and 5 is not required. Hence notice to the respondents 3, 4 and 5 shall be dispensed with.

7.In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to travel to Srilanka for a period of 20 days starting from 08.07.2026 to 28.07.2026 with the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall file a memo giving details of his travel itinerary, viz., likely date of departure from India and arrival to India along with a copy of Flight Ticket before the trial Court and a copy to be submitted to the second respondent-investigating agency, who is the originator of LOC.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a Bond for Rs.25 lakhs with one surety for likesum. The surety to deposit his passport with the second respondent, who shall receive passport, give acknowledgment, after return of petitioner the passport shall be returned to the surety without delay

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish certain details regarding his stay in Srilanka and certain communication details viz., place of stay, contact number and E-mail address.

(iv) The petitioner shall file an undertaking affidavit that he will not be a reason for stalling of progress of the trial.

(v) The Look Out Circular No.2041156 originated on the report of 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.

(vi) The petitioner on his arrival to India, shall report before the trial Court.

8.With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed.

08.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order sma To

1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶2The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation: ACB Shastri Bhavan, No.26 Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation: ACB Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

4.The Commissioner (Immigration) Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home affairs Government of India, East Block VIII, Level V, Sector 1, R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 003.

5.The Chief Immigration Officer Shastri Bhavan Annexe Buildings No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

6.The Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Bureau of Immigration, Anna International Airport, Meenambakkam Airport, Chennai - 600 027. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

, J.

sma

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

08.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Satyan Kasturi S/o.K.S.Kothandaraman, 102/36, 1st Avenue, Defense Officers Colony, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Petitioner Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation: ACB Shastri Bhavan, No.26 Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation: ACB Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. 3.Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home affairs Government of India, Represented by its Commissioner (Immigration) East Block VIII, Level V, Sector 1, R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 003. 4.The Chief Immigration Officer Shastri Bhavan Annexe Buildings No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 5.The Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Bureau of Immigration, Anna International Airport, Meenambakkam Airport, Chennai - 600 027. Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to travel from Chennai to Sri Lanka from 08.07.2026 to 28.07.2026 by considering the petitioners representation dated 0.107.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.S.John Josh For Respondents-1 & 2 : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor