New Delhi: Travelling abroad is an integral facet of Fundamental Rights, said a Delhi court, allowing a woman accused of money laundering to visit Thailand because of her children’s summer vacations.In an order dated July 19, the court said it needed to balance the right of the accused to travel abroad against the grounds for refusing such permission.Vacation judge Rajesh Malik was hearing the application of Reena Goel, an accused in the case in which shops in Delhi’s Karol Bagh market area of a group company of Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers had been attached under the anti-money laundering law as part of an investigation into a multi-crore bank loan fraud.According to the Enforcement Directorate, the properties belonged to Ginni Gold Private Limited and its directors-cum-promoters Ginni Devi and Reena Goel.Goel was granted bail in December 2025 with the condition that she could not leave the country without the court’s prior permission. But she wished to travel to Thailand for her children’s summer vacations from June 25 to July 2.In an order dated July 19, the court said it needed to balance the right of the accused to travel abroad against the grounds for refusing such permission. “The primary and most compelling ground for denial would be credible apprehension that she will flee from justice. Such apprehension can either be shown from the evidence or it can be gathered by drawing inferences from other facts,” the court said.It, however, said the ED has not shown any evidence or facts to show that she may flee from justice. “It is not the case that she is making investments in foreign countries to settle abroad. Mere being an accused does not suffice to stop her from travelling abroad,” the court said.“Further, there is a plethora of judgments of the constitutional courts of India, thereby recognising that travelling abroad is an integral facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution,” it added.It then allowed the application, subject to conditions such as furnishing an FDR of ₹10 lakh, not tampering with evidence, not seeking extension of the stay and providing a detailed itinerary.The court said that no adjournment shall be given to her counsel because of her absence.