Pasupuleti China Chennaiah Vs the Union of India

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.35727 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Pasupuleti China Chennaiah

¶6

Versus	… Petitioner (s)
The Union of India, represented by its Secretary And five (05) others	...Respondents
* * * * *
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :	11.03.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIV	ASA REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order?	Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?	Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?	Yes/No

¶7

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶8

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶9

2

¶10

*** HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY + WRIT PETITION NO.35727 OF 2025**

¶11

% 11.03.2026

¶12

# Between:

¶13

Pasupuleti China Chennaiah

¶14

… Petitioner (s)

¶15

Versus

¶16

The Union of India, represented by its Secretary And five (05) others

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

!^{Counsel for the Petitioner(s)} : Sri N.Ashwani Kumar

¶19

^ GP for Home Counsel for the Respondent : Sri B.Somasekhar, Counsel for R.1 to R4

¶20

< Gist:

¶21

> Head Note:

¶22

? Cases referred:

¶23

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & another in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17769 of 2025), dated 19.12.2025.

¶24

Writ Petition No.32058 of 2025, dated 03.12.2025 on the file of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶25

Writ Petition No.2269 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶26

2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.

¶27

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

1978 (1) SCC 248.

¶30

2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

¶31

Order in Writ Petition (CRL) No.714 of 2022, dated 04.04.2022 on the file of the High Court of New Delhi.

¶32

Order in WPA No.22748 of 2022, dated 09.06.2023 on the file of the High Court of Calcutta.

¶33

This Court made the following:

¶34

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

APHC010696102025

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶38

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶39

[3327]

¶40

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶41

PRESENT

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO: 35727/2025

¶44

Between:

¶45

PASUPULETI CHINA CHENNAIAH, S/O. RATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. 1-129, MITTAPALEM, PEDAPALEM, ATCHAMPETA MANDAL GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522410, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.

¶46

...PETITIONER

¶47

A N D

¶48

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, JAISALMER HOUSE, 26 MANSINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI.

¶49

THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, , REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, EAST BLOCK- VIII, LEVEL-V, SECTOR1, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI- 110066.

¶50

THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HYDERABAD, REP BY THE FRRO, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL BOL OFFICE, NEAR CISF QUARTERS, MAMIDIPALLY, SHAMSHABAD, HYDERABAD.

¶51

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶52

THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶53

THE S H O, NALLAPDU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶54

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶55

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 issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction,

¶56

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶57

5

¶58

more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus A. Declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Look-Out Circular (LoC) vide Ref. No. 2025/10031/002706 dated 17.04.2025, notifying the Petitioner as an accused whose presence is required for the originating agency or competent court, as illegal. arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural Justice, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreign Division), No. 25016/31/2010-lmm and B.Declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in failing to renew the Passport No.N5750211 of the Petitioner as being illegal. arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and in violation of provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, and C.Consequently set aside the said Look-Out Circular vide Ref. No. 2025/10031/002706 dated 17.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2, to the extent of the Petitioner only, and D.Consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to renew the Passport NO.N5750211 of the Petitioner for the period of 10 years in terms of the Passport Act, 1967, E. Pass

¶59

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶60

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 suspend the operation of the impugned Look-Out Circular (LoC) vide Ref. No. 2025/10031/ 002706 dated 17.04.2025 issued by Respondent No.2, and pass

¶61

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶62

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 direct Respondent No.4 to temporarily renew the Passport bearing No. N5750211 of the Petitioner without reference to the pending criminal case, and pass

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶64

1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶66

1.GP FOR HOME

¶67

2.B SOMASEKHAR

¶68

The Court made the following:

¶69

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶70

6

¶71

O R D E R

¶72

Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri B.Somasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶73

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Lookout Circular (LoC) vide Ref.No.2025/10031/002706 dated 17.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2 notifying the presence of Writ Petitioner as an accused, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Office Memorandum, dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreign Division) No.250163/31/2010-Imm, and declare the action of respondent No.4 in not renewing the Passport of the Writ Petitioner vide No.N5750211, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 (for brevity „the Act, 1967‟) and consequently, direct the respondent No.4 to renew the passport for a period of 10 (Ten) years in terms of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶74

Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner went to Australia in the year 2018

¶75

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶76

7

¶77

to pursue his Masters‟ Degree and presently, he got employment at Melbourne, Australia. The Writ Petitioner left India on 03.07.2024 and even though he had not visited India subsequently, basing on the report given by one Gosi Vijaya Kumari, respondent No.6 registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2025 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur on 19.01.2025, for the offences punishable under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „BNS‟) and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (vA) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the SCs & the STs Act, 1989‟) against the Writ Petitioner and another. After filing charge sheet, the IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Sessions Court for trial of Cases filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 took cognizance of the case as Sessions Case No.165 of 2025 and it is pending for trial. The Writ Petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in the said case and he did not commit any offence and only in order to harass him, the said crime was got registered. Accused No.2 in the said Sessions Case, got filed Criminal Petition No.11094 of 2025 on the file of this Court seeking the Court to

¶78

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶79

8

¶80

quash the case proceedings against him and this Court dispensed his presence before the Trial Court.

¶81

(b) The Writ Petitioner holds Indian Passport vide No.N5750211 issued on 11.01.2016, valid till 10.01.2026; that the Writ Petitioner is presently residing in Australia and applied for renewal of passport vide Application No.AMIB/030925/0157/01, dated 03.09.2025, but he received an e-Mail on 24.10.2025 from the Consulate General of India, Melbourne stating that his passport has been marked „Adverse‟ and placed on hold due to pendency of Sessions Case before the Special Court. The Writ Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition vide CFR no.3792 dated 28.11.2025 under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act, 1967 before the Special Court, seeking permission for renewal of his passport, but it was returned on the ground that Non-Bailable Warrant is pending and the presence of Writ Petitioner is compulsory.

¶82

(c) Upon the request made by respondent Nos.5 and 6, respondent No.2 issued Look-out Circular No.2025413751 vide Ref.No.2025/10031/002706, dated 17.04.2025. Due to issuance of LoC, the Writ Petitioner was prevented from travelling abroad or from returning to India. The passport of the Writ Petitioner is currently pending for renewal with the Indian Embassy at

¶83

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶84

9

¶85

Melbourne, Australia and is awaiting necessary clearance from respondent Nos.2 to 6 as the passport of the Writ Petitioner expired on 10.01.2026 and there exists every threat that the Writ Petitioner be declared as an illegal immigrant if the passport is not renewed before 10.01.2026. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶86

This Court on 30.12.2025 passed the following order:

¶87

“Upon considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and upon review of the undertaking affidavits filed before this Court, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967.

¶88

List the matter on 05.03.2026.

¶89

Till such time, the Look-out Circular, dated 17.04.2025, stands suspended.”

¶90

Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ

¶91

Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner is falsely foisted into the crime, for the reason that, while the Writ Petitioner was in Australia, the subject crime was got registered against him by the de facto complainant. Learned counsel would further contend that the wife of Writ Petitioner was in third trimester of her pregnancy and the date of delivery was expected to be on 29.01.2026 and at this stage, presence of Writ Petitioner is very much necessary.

¶92

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶93

10

¶94

Due to the Non-bailable warrant pending against the Writ Petitioner, Look-out Circular was opened against him and until and unless the Look-out Circular is set-aside and passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed, the Writ Petitioner could not visit India to pursue the case proceedings pending against him. He submits that the Writ Petitioner is ready to appear before the Court and pursue the case proceedings and he showed his bona fides by coming back to India. It is further submitted that since the Writ Petitioner is working in Australia, he has to travel abroad frequently, and by virtue of opening of the Look-out Circular, it will be a hurdle for the Writ Petitioner to travel abroad and in each and

¶95

every Airport, he would be stopped and his credentials will be questioned by the immigration and he would be restrained in the Airport without issuing boarding pass.

¶96

Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would further

¶97

contend that the freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interest of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary,

¶98

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶99

11

¶100

proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. He placed strong reliance on the propositions of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & another¹ , High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Chikka Raghunandan v. The Union of India,

¶101

represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, and others² , and also this Court‟s Order in Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. The Union of India and others³ and prays the Court to set-aside the Look-out Circular.

¶102

On the other hand, Sri B.Soma Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would contend that the Writ Petitioner tried to flee away from the case proceedings pending before the trial Court, but as the Look-out Circular was causing hurdle to get his passport renewed, he approached the Court taking the plea that he is innocent. Learned counsel would further contend that the trial Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the Writ Petitioner as he was not pursuing the case proceedings, and if the Look-out Circular is removed, the Writ Petitioner gets his passport renewed and flee away from trial proceedings and his

¶103

1 Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17769 of 2025), dated 19.12.2025.

¶104

2 Writ Petition No.32058 of 2025, dated 03.12.2025.

¶105

3 Writ Petition No.2269 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026.

¶106

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶107

12

¶108

presence could not be secured. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶109

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.5 and 6 concurred the contention of learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and further contended that if the Look-out Circular is set-aside, the Writ Petitioner would succeed in getting his passport renewed and then, his presence could not be secured in the Sessions Case proceedings pending before the trial Court.

¶110

Perused the entire material available on record.

¶111

A perusal of entire material on record goes to show

¶112

that Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.165 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Special Sessions Court for trial of Cases filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, 1989 for trial for the offences punishable under Section 79 of BNS and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (vA) of the SCs & the STs Act, 1989 and it is pending for trial. Admittedly, the trial Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the Writ Petitioner in the said Sessions Case and the same is pending execution.

¶113

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶114

13

¶115

It is the contention of learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the subject crime is falsely foisted against him, as, on the date of offence, he was not in India and he was in Australia for the purpose of his employment. On the face of the record, it is apparent that the passport of the Writ Petitioner expired on 10.01.2026 and he made an application before the trial Court under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 to grant clearance/order/NOC to him for renewal of his passport. However, the said application was returned by the office of the trial Court, as Non-Bailable Warrant is pending against him.

¶116

Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a passport. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 contemplates that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India. The Government of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. GSR 570 (E) reads as follows:

¶117

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 298(E) dated the 14^th April 1976, the Central Government, being of

¶118

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶119

14

¶120

the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, viz :- …”

¶121

A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to show that if any citizen of India intends to travel abroad when a criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India exempting from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶122

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation⁴ held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.

¶123

4 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.

¶124

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶125

15

¶126

14. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi

¶127

v. Union of India⁵ held that no person can be deprived of his right

¶128

to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The relevant portion of the paragraph No.5 is extracted as under:

¶129

“Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.

¶130

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.”

¶131

5 1978 (1) SCC 248.

¶132

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶133

16

¶134

15. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India

¶135

and another⁶ at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as under:

¶136

“4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

¶137

This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

¶138

The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon

¶139

6 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

¶140

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶141

17

¶142

by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter-affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court.

¶143

16. The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the

¶144

aforesaid Sessions Case. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/appear before the Court as and when required without fail. Right to travel abroad is a facet of

¶145

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶146

18

¶147

personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said right is a Fundamental Right and a citizen of the country cannot be deprived of his personal liberty or of his right to travel abroad.

¶148

At the time of admission of Writ Petition, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submitted that wife of Writ Petitioner was pregnant and she was in third trimester with her expected date of delivery on 29.01.2026 and it was further submitted that the Writ Petitioner intends to return to India before March, 2026 and appear before the trial Court and seek recall of the NonBailable Warrant issued against him. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that as the passport of the Writ Petitioner was due to expire on 10.01.2026, the father-in-law and brother of Writ Petitioner filed Undertaking affidavits before this Court on 30.12.2025 that, upon renewal of Writ Petitioner‟s passport, the Writ Petitioner would return to India and appear before the trial Court. Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and pursuant to the Undertaking affidavits filed by the father-in-law and brother of Writ Petitioner,

¶149

this Court directed the respondent authorities to renew the Writ Petitioner‟s passport in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967.

¶150

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶151

19

¶152

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in various Judgments discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court exempts the Writ Petitioner from the operation of provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 in terms of the Notification in G.S.R.No.570(E) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport to him. The passport shall be renewed with a validity of ten (10) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. Accordingly, the Order dated 30.12.2025 passed by this Court, in respect of directing the respondent authorities to renew the passport of the Writ Petitioner is made absolute.

¶153

In respect of Look-out Circular opened by 2^nd respondent against the Writ Petitioner, 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,

¶154

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶155

20

¶156

in each and every case that has been registered, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioners are cooperating with the trial or they are 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 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.

¶157

19. In Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another⁷ the

¶158

High Court of New Delhi held thus (paragraphs 11 and 12):

¶159

“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

¶160

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

¶161

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶162

21

¶163

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.

¶164

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.”

¶165

20. Further, in Mannoj Kumar Jain & another v. Union

¶166

of India & others⁸ , it was held thus: (paragraphs 20, 21 and 22).

¶167

“20. Apart from the reach of Look Out Circulars to cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of movement, Look Out Circulars have an inexplicably long shelf-life. Sub-paragraph 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

¶168

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

¶169

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶170

22

¶171

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.

¶172

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.

¶173

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.”

¶174

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶175

23

¶176

In the case on hand, the offences alleged against the Writ Petitioner are punishable under Section 79 of BNS and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (vA) of the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act, 1989. According to the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, on the date of the alleged incident in the said case, admittedly, the Writ Petitioner was not in India and he was in abroad and that, the Writ Petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial of the case and will not flee away from the justice. If the Writ Petitioner is not permitted to travel to India by virtue of opening LoC against him, Writ Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and it would not only obstruct the Writ Petitioner to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the trial Court but also curtail his appearance before the trial Court, to proceed with the trial proceedings. 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 Writ Petitioner would be affected.

¶177

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 Writ Petitioner would amount

¶178

SRK, J W.P.No.35727 of 2025

¶179

24

¶180

abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned Look-out Circular issued against the Writ Petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶181