Madras High Court
Ransom Anselm Murray vs The State Rep By on 27 February, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.7114 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.7114 of 2025
RANSOM ANSELM MURRAY ... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE REP BY:
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCE C.I.D., METRO WING-II,
EGMORE, CHENNAI – 8. ( CR.NO. 7 /2020)
2. PREM CHAND JAIN
3. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE,
HADDOWS ROAD, SUBBA ROAD AVENUE,
NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU – 600 006.
4. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE,
BMTC BUS STAND, 5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK,
TTMC BUILDING, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 027.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, allowing the petitioner to travel United
Kingdom for a limited period of time by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 21.02.2025.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
W.P.No.7114 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabhakaran
For R1 : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R3 & R4 : Mr.V.T.Balaji
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus allowing the
petitioner to travel to the United Kingdom for a limited period of time, by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.02.2025.
2. The petitioner’s case is that he holds a United Kingdom passport.
The petitioner is an Anglo-Indian and is married to an Indian citizen. His
family resides in the United Kingdom. The petitioner became involved in a
case in Crime No. 7 of 2020, on the file of CBCID, Chennai. He was arrested
pursuant to a lookout circular and has been stranded in India for more than
two years. The investigation is now completed and a charge sheet has been
filed. The case has been taken on file as C.C. No. 15341 of 2022 before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court for exclusive Trial of CCB Cases at
Egmore and the matter is pending trial. However, the petitioner is still not
permitted to travel abroad, and the lookout circular remains in force.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
3. Mr.R.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, would submit that the law relating to Lookout Circulars is now
well-settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of
Karti P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement. He would further
rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in Kartik Parthiban vs.
Superintendent of Police (W.P. No. 24906 of 2024), wherein this Court
recognized the right of even a foreign national under Article 21 to travel and
held that unless there is a genuine fear of fleeing permanently or other valid
grounds, the right to travel abroad should not be curtailed. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be permitted to
travel abroad.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4
would submit that the petitioner is a foreign national and that there is a
specific procedure for foreign nationals to leave the country. He must seek
permission from the trial Court and only upon the trial Court’s permission,
the petitioner can travel to abroad and return to attend the trial. Otherwise, the
petitioner must remain in the country and complete the criminal case before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
being permitted to travel abroad.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent would submit that the petitioner is not right in relying upon the
other judgments. The petitioner, in an earlier application, approached this
Court in W.P. No. 34498 of 2022, and upon the matter not being entertained,
he withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application
seeking leave to travel abroad before the concerned Criminal Court. The
petitioner subsequently filed an application before the concerned Criminal
Court, which was dismissed. This dismissal was challenged through a
criminal revision, but it was also dismissed. Therefore, since the matter has
been concluded in relation to the petitioner, he cannot rely upon the dictum
laid down in other cases to seek permission to travel abroad.
6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would submit that the criminal case itself pertains to a property dispute, with
the allegation being related to cheating. The total sum involved in the case is
Rs. 25,00,000/-. The matter is now posted for trial. The petitioner is even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
willing to deposit the said amount before the trial Court. It is not his intention
to flee from justice. He will return and face the trial.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and
perused the material records of the case.
8. There is no quarrel over the legal proposition made on behalf of the
petitioner that any person has a right to travel abroad and that would include
foreign nationals as well. This right would be restricted only if reasonable
apprehension exists that the person would be a flight risk, that is, he will
never return to the country to face the trial or he will involve himself in
transactions while traveling abroad that will hamper the criminal case, tamper
with the evidence, or in any manner impede the progress of the trial. Further,
it has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Karti P.
Chidambaram cited supra that the very object of a Lookout Circular is to
secure the person and make him submit to the Court of law. In this case, the
petitioner is already secured and has submitted himself to the criminal
proceedings, attending the Court so far. The only apprehension that can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
made by the prosecution is that the petitioner will return to his native country
and it is common knowledge that the United Kingdom is not a country where
persons can be readily extradited, it involves a long-drawn process.
9. In this regard, I consider the nature of the allegations made in the
criminal case. It pertains to cheating the de facto complainant in the instant
case. The offenses complained of are under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The
value alleged is a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The petitioner is ready to deposit
the said sum before the trial Court. At the same time, since the petitioner has
withdrawn the earlier writ petition seeking permission to approach the trial
Court and his earlier application before the trial Court was confirmed by this
Court in Criminal R.C.No. 626 of 2023, no relief can be granted by this Court
to the petitioner, however, the matter can be reconsidered since now the offer
is made to deposit the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-
10. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of on the following
terms:-
(i) The petitioner shall make a fresh application to
the appropriate trial Court, namely the Special Court for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court for exclusive Trial
of CCB Cases at Egmore, in the pending criminal case of
C.C. 15341 of 2022, by providing a due undertaking that he
will return and face the trial. He shall keep his whereabouts
informed to both the investigating authority and inform
them of the place where he will be residing in the United
Kingdom, along with his contact details. In the application,
with the permission of the trial Court, the petitioner shall
deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000 before the trial court, to the
credit of the crime number, by way of a demand draft;
(ii) It is made clear that thereafter, the trial Court can
consider the application positively and pass orders
permitting him to travel abroad. The trial Court may also
specify the dates on which the petitioner can travel abroad
and for which hearings he should attend without fail;
(iii) It is further made clear that if the petitioner fails
to return and uphold the promise made, even pending the
trial, the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- will be paid out to the
defacto complainant, who is the victim, by appropriately
considering the application of the defacto complainant in
that regard and the petitioner shall not raise any grievance
that the amount should not be paid before the judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
The trial court shall consider the application without
reference to the earlier dismissal of the previous
applications.
(iv) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed. No costs.
27.02.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
To
1. THE STATE REP BY:
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCE C.I.D., METRO WING-II,
EGMORE, CHENNAI – 8. ( CR.NO. 7 /2020)
2. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE,
HADDOWS ROAD, SUBBA ROAD AVENUE,
NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU – 600 006.
3. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE,
BMTC BUS STAND, 5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK,
TTMC BUILDING, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 027.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 04:12:02 pm )
