Nasaka Pridhvi Kumar Vs Union of India

NASAKA PRIDHVI KUMAR, S/O. NASAKA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, AGED 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE WORKING AT SULTANATE OF OMAN AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D.NO 3-11/2, VINAYAKA NAGAR, VAKALAPUDI KAKINADA NEAR RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH533 005.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY ITS SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 522239

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE, 6 BN, A.P.S.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR.522501

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PITHAPURAM ROAD, BHANUGUDI JUNCTION, KAKINADA - 533 003.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAHILA UPS KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT533003.

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION BRANCH (IB), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT, OF INDIA, BLOCK NO.8, EAST RK PURAM, SECTOR-1, NEW DELHI66.110001

¶18

THE IMMIGRATION OFFICER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT R G I AIRPORT HYDERABAD, TELANGANA.500001. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing Look-Out Circular against me in relation to Crime No.50 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District, as unlawful, arbitrary, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of my rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 5th respondent to withdraw/ cancel the Look-Out Circular issued against me in relation to Crime No.50 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order suspending the operation of Look-Out Circular against me in relation to Crime No.50 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District, during the pendency of this Writ Petition and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K S S NARAYANA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR HOME

¶28

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.5 in issuing Look Out Circular (LOC) against petitioner in relation to Crime No.50 of 2025 of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the

¶32

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶33

3

¶34

Dowry Prohibition Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the Look-Out Circular.

¶35

It is the case of petitioner that his marriage was solemnized with the de facto complainant in the aforesaid crime Sri Satya Sai Navya Nasaka on 09.02.2023 at Tirumala Function Hall, Kakinada. Thereafter, the couple led matrimonial house at Vakalapudi, Kakinada, and later the de facto complainant picked up fights with the petitioner and his family members and deserted him without any reason. Subsequently, basing on a report dated 12.10.2025 lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.50 of 2025 of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District under Section 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act was registered. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner tried to board flight for Sultanate of Oman from Hyderabad on his job purpose. But, respondent No.7-Immigration Officer, RGI Airport, Hyderabad, Telangana had detained the petitioner and handed over him to the respondent No.5. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 issued 35(3) of BNSS Notice on 18.01.2026 and after receiving Station Bail, the petitioner was released by 5^th respondent. The petitioner is cooperating with the investigation in Crime No.50 of 2025 of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District and 35(3) of BNSS Notice was already issued to the petitioner. The respondents not taking any steps to withdraw/cancel the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner in relation to Crime No.50 of 2025 and forcing the petitioner to stay in India. Due to the

¶36

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶37

4

¶38

unlawful action of the respondents, the petitioner is unable to travel to his work place i.e. Sultanate of Oman, and he is in the verge of losing his job due to unlawful action of the respondents. On several occasions, the petitioner requested the respondents orally to withdraw the LOC issued against the petitioner, but the respondents gave a deaf ear to his requests, causing great prejudice to him and violating his Fundamental Rights and freedom conferred under the Constitution of India. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Crime No.50 of 2025 of Mahila UPS Kakinada, Kakinada District for the offences under Section 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act is pending against the petitioner, the respondents issued Look-Out Circular against the petitioner. In fact, 5^th respondent already served notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner on 18.01.2026 and the petitioner furnished sureties, obtained station bail and cooperated with the investigation. Due to the unlawful action of the respondents, the petitioner is unable to travel to his work place i.e. Sultanate of Oman, and he is in the verge of losing his job due to unlawful action of the respondents.

¶40

On several occasions, the petitioner requested the respondents orally to withdraw the LOC issued against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that a Look-Out Circular pending against the petitioner would be a coercive measure against him and consequently, it is interfering with his

¶41

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶42

5

¶43

right to personal liberty and free movement. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would undertake that he would cooperate with the investigation.

¶44

The learned counsel relied on a decision in Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another¹ , wherein it was held thus (paragraphs 11 and 12):

¶45

“11. In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC.

¶46

The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed. However, a balance has to be struck qua the right of the investigation agency to investigate the instant matter as well as the fundamental right of the petitioner of movement and free speech.”

¶47

6. He also placed reliance on a decision in Mannoj Kumar Jain &

¶48

another v. Union of India & others² , wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs

¶49

20, 21 and 22).

¶50

“20. Apart from the reach of Look Out Circulars to cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of

¶51

1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022.

¶52

2 Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.22748 of 2022.

¶53

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶54

6

¶55

movement, Look Out Circulars have an inexplicably long shelf-life. Subparagraph J of the OM dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a LOC shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the originator and that no LOC shall be deleted automatically. Although these clauses cast an obligation on the originating agency to review the LOC on a quarterly / annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same, this is sadly found to be absent in most cases. Once a Look Out Circular is issued, it remains alive and kicking for almost all times to come. This spells dangerous repercussions on the person's right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile. The Banks have been given untrammelled powers to issue, use and exploit the lock-in power of a Look Out Circular without sufficient recourse being provided in law to the person at the receiving end of it. The expressions "... detrimental... to the economic interest of India" in the concerned OM is sufficient to sharpen the talons of a vindictive Bank to clip the wings of a vulnerable prey (in the metaphoric sense). The Writ Court hence can and should step in to check such unregulated abuse of power by Banks where the facts demand relief.

¶56

In view of the above reasons, the respondent No.8 Indian Overseas Bank cannot have any continuing reason to interfere with the petitioners' travel outside the country. The interference sought to be imposed by way of the Look Out Circular is arbitrary and without any rational basis. The CBI Courts, where the cases are pending, are free to pass orders or impose conditions as the Courts may deem fit. The petitioners have not claimed any reliefs against those proceedings in the writ petition. This Court however sees no reason to allow the impugned Look Out Circular to remain or be used against the petitioners in the absence of any acceptable apprehension, let alone evidence, shown on behalf of the Bank.

¶57

WPA 22748 of 2022 is accordingly allowed by quashing the impugned Look Out Circular issued by the respondent No.8 Bank. The respondent No.8 and the other respondents shall not continue to give any further effect to the Look Out Circular which would have the effect of preventing the petitioners to travel outside India. The writ petition and all connected applications are disposed of accordingly.”

¶58

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that if the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioner avoiding investigation and judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶59

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶60

7

¶61

8. Heard. Perused the record.

¶62

In the case on hand, petitioner states that after service of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner by 5^th respondent on 18.01.2026 in connection with the above crime, the petitioner furnished sureties, was released on station bail and cooperated with the investigation and he unable to travel to his work place i.e. Sultanate of Oman, due to the Look Out Circular. The Petitioner states that he required to travel Sultanate of Oman because of his work place and professional responsibilities. In such circumstances, it is essential for the petitioner herein to travel Sultanate of Oman to meet his professional responsibilities. Look Out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s Fundamental Right of movement.

¶63

Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial in a criminal case. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 85 of BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation or he is evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial

¶64

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶65

8

¶66

irregularities or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused, not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued. In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act and the alleged offences are not so grave and, if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LOC against him, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC, personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for a matrimonial office, opening of the LOC will affect the career of a person. In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.

¶67

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid precedents, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner would amount abuse of process of law.

¶68

SRK, J W.P.No.2291 of 2026

¶69

9

¶70