A court in Delhi says Reena Goel can go to Thailand. She is in trouble for a money crime.

德里的一家法院表示 Reena Goel 可以前往泰國。她因涉及金錢犯罪而陷入困境。

Reena Goel and another woman had a big bank fraud. The police took their shops and buildings. Reena cannot travel to other countries without the court's help.

Reena Goel 和另一名女子涉及一起重大的銀行詐騙案。警方沒收了她們的店鋪與建築物。若無法院許可，Reena 無法前往其他國家。

Judge Rajesh Malik looked at the case. The police said Reena might run away. But the judge said the police have no proof. Reena does not have money or houses in other countries.

法官 Rajesh Malik 審理了本案。警方表示 Reena 可能會潛逃，但法官認為警方缺乏證據。Reena 在其他國家並沒有資金或房產。

The judge says every person has the right to travel. But Reena must follow some rules. She must give the court 10 lakh rupees. She must also show her travel plan.

法官表示每個人都有旅行的權利。但 Reena 必須遵守某些規定。她必須向法院繳納 100 萬盧比，並提交她的行程計畫。

The court says Reena can travel because she is not a danger.

法院表示 Reena 可以旅行，因為她不構成危險。

A Delhi court has allowed Reena Goel, a woman involved in a financial fraud investigation, to travel to Thailand for family reasons.

德里法院已允許一名涉嫌金融詐騙調查的女性 Reena Goel 出訪泰國，理由是家庭原因。

The legal case began with an investigation into a large bank loan fraud, which led to the seizure of commercial properties in Karol Bagh. These properties belong to Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers and Ginni Gold Private Limited, companies directed by Ginni Devi and Reena Goel. Although Ms. Goel was granted bail in December 2025, she was not allowed to travel abroad without the court's permission.

此法律案件始於一項針對大型銀行貸款詐騙的調查，隨後導致 Karol Bagh 的商業物業被沒收。這些物業屬於 Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers 與 Ginni Gold Private Limited，由 Ginni Devi 與 Reena Goel 擔任董事。儘管 Goel 女士在 2025 年 12 月獲得保釋，但在未經法院許可的情況下，她不得出國旅行。

When deciding on her application to visit Thailand from June 25 to July 2, Judge Rajesh Malik compared the state's need to ensure the accused remains present with the individual's basic rights. The judge emphasized that travel should only be denied if there is a real risk that the person will flee the country. Consequently, the court found that the Enforcement Directorate did not provide enough evidence of such a risk, noting that Ms. Goel had no foreign investments for a permanent move.

法官 Rajesh Malik 在審理其 6 月 25 日至 7 月 2 日訪問泰國的申請時，將國家確保被告在場的需求與個人的基本權利進行權衡。法官強調，只有在存在逃亡風險的真實情況下，才應拒絕出國申請。因此，法院認定執行局（Enforcement Directorate）未能提供足夠證據證明存在此類風險，並指出 Goel 女士在海外沒有投資，並無永久遷居之意。

Furthermore, the court stated that the right to travel internationally is a key part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The permission was granted on several conditions: she must provide a ₹10 lakh Fixed Deposit Receipt, submit a full travel plan, and promise not to interfere with evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that her absence cannot be used as a reason to delay future legal hearings.

此外，法院表示，國際旅行權是憲法第 21 條規定之生命權與個人自由基本權的核心部分。法院在多項條件下 granting 許可：她必須提供 10 萬盧比的定期存款單、提交完整的旅行計劃，並承諾不干涉證據。此外，法院裁定，她的缺席不得被用作延遲未來法律聆訊的理由。

The court has granted conditional permission for the accused to travel, stating that fundamental rights are more important when there is no proven risk of the person fleeing.

法院已有條件地允許被告出國，並表示在未證明存在逃亡風險的情況下，基本權利更為重要。

A Delhi court has permitted Reena Goel, an individual implicated in a financial fraud investigation, to travel to Thailand for familial reasons.

德里法院已允許一名涉嫌金融詐欺調查的人士 Reena Goel 出發前往泰國，原因為家庭因素。

The legal proceedings originate from an investigation into a multi-crore bank loan fraud, which resulted in the attachment of commercial properties in the Karol Bagh area. These assets, associated with Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers and Ginni Gold Private Limited, are attributed to directors Ginni Devi and Reena Goel. Having been granted bail in December 2025, Ms. Goel was subject to a restriction on international travel pending judicial approval.

此次法律程序源於一起針對數千萬銀行貸款詐欺的調查，導致 Karol Bagh 地區的商業不動產被扣押。這些資產與 Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers 及 Ginni Gold Private Limited 相關，歸屬於董事 Ginni Devi 與 Reena Goel。Goel 女士於 2025 年 12 月獲准保釋，在獲得司法批准前，其國際旅行受到限制。

In the adjudication of the application to visit Thailand from June 25 to July 2, Vacation Judge Rajesh Malik performed a balancing analysis between the state's interest in ensuring the presence of the accused and the individual's constitutional liberties. The court posited that the denial of travel privileges necessitates a credible apprehension of flight from justice, derived either from direct evidence or factual inferences. Consequently, the court observed that the Enforcement Directorate failed to substantiate any such risk, noting the absence of foreign investments intended for permanent relocation.

在審理 6 月 25 日至 7 月 2 日前往泰國的申請時，代理法官 Rajesh Malik 在國家確保被告到場的利益與個人憲法自由之間進行了權衡分析。法院認為，剝奪旅行權利的前提必須是對其逃避司法審判有可靠的擔憂，且此擔憂須基於直接證據或事實推論。因此，法院指出執行局（Enforcement Directorate）未能證明存在此類風險，並注意到並未發現旨在永久移居的海外投資。

Furthermore, the court invoked the precedent of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, asserting that the capacity for international travel constitutes an integral component of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The authorization was granted contingent upon the fulfillment of specific mandates: the provision of a ₹10 lakh Fixed Deposit Receipt, the submission of a comprehensive itinerary, and a commitment to abstain from evidence tampering. Additionally, the court stipulated that the defendant's absence shall not serve as a valid basis for legal adjournments.

此外，法院援引印度憲法法理的先例，主張國際旅行能力構成憲法第 21 條下生命權與個人自由基本權利之不可或缺的組成部分。該許可的授予是以滿足特定要求為前提：提供 100 萬盧比的定期存款單、提交詳細行程，並承諾不篡改證據。此外，法院規定被告的缺席不得作為法律程序延期的有效理由。

The court has granted conditional permission for the accused to travel abroad, citing the primacy of fundamental rights in the absence of flight risk.

法院在無逃亡風險的情況下，考量到基本權利優先，准許被告有條件出國旅行。