Allowed¶89

Addanki Deepak Kumar v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Mar 2026WP/6298/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Look-out Circular quashed; LoC Originator Ref. No.2025/10031/00009742 dated 23.09.2025; LoC No.2025436587; Bureau of Immigration; Crime No.504 of 2025 Arundalpet Police Station Guntur; Sections 85, 79 read with 3(5) BNS 2023; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; Section 35(3) BNSS notice; matrimonial offence; personal liberty; Article 21 right to travel; MHA Guidelines OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021; Rana Ayyub; Mannoj Kumar Jain; Lagubeeru Venkata Aruna Kiran; abuse of process; Passports Act 1967; W.P. No.6298 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Look-out Circular (Originator Ref. No.2025/10031/00009742 dated 23.09.2025; LoC No.2025436587) issued against the writ petitioner quashed; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stand closed. ¶89

Addanki Deepak Kumar Vs the Union of India — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the Look-out Circular (Originator Ref. No.2025/10031/00009742 dated 23.09.2025; LoC No.2025436587) issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, notifying the writ petitioner as an accused, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines on Look-out Circular (OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021), and consequently liable to be set aside.

¶31

Court's answer

Given that the petitioner had no Non-Bailable Warrant or coercive process pending against him and was losing his employment owing to restricted foreign travel, the Look-out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's Fundamental Right of movement.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Police must not open LoCs mechanically in every case registered under Section 498A IPC / Sections 85, 79 read with 3(5) BNS and Sections 3-4 of the DP Act, 1961 without examining whether the accused is cooperating with investigation/trial or evading arrest; LoCs are to be reserved for persons accused of grave offences, persons involved in financial irregularities, offences against society, or accusations detrimental to the Nation.

¶79

Key takeaways

On the facts, the offences alleged (Sections 85, 79 read with 3(5) BNS 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 DP Act, 1961) are not so grave; denial of foreign travel for employment by virtue of the LoC would cause the petitioner irreparable loss, tested against Article 21; on mere registration of a matrimonial offence, opening of a LoC affects personal liberty and career, and it is not necessary for the police to open a LoC against the petitioner.ratio¶84
Keeping in view the principles in the precedents relied upon, continuance of the Look-out Circular issued against the writ petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.ratio¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.), W.P. No.6298 of 2026, decided 09.03.2026 — Quashing of Look-Out Circular. The petitioner, employed with Amazon in the USA, UK and Bangalore, was notified as an accused in a Look-Out Circular issued by the Bureau of Immigration (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) vide Originator Ref. No.2025/10031/00009742, dated 23.09.2025 and LoC No.2025436587, pursuant to Crime No.504 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur under Sections 85, 79 read with 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising out of a matrimonial dispute (OP No.141 of 2025, Tanuku). Holding: (i) the petitioner had answered notice under Section 35(3) BNSS dated 07.10.2025, was fully cooperating with the investigation, and no Non-Bailable Warrant or coercive process was pending; (ii) this Court had already directed passport reissuance without reference to the crime by order dated 24.09.2025 in W.P. No.25788 of 2025; (iii) relying on Rana Ayyub (Delhi HC, 04.04.2022) and Mannoj Kumar Jain (Calcutta HC, 09.06.2023) and following this Court's own Lagubeeru Venkata Aruna Kiran (W.P. No.2269 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026), the Court observed that LoCs in routine matrimonial-offence cases are opened mechanically, curtailing personal liberty to travel under Article 21; (iv) LoCs should be opened only against accused of grave offences, persons involved in financial irregularities, or offences against society/detrimental to the Nation; (v) the offences here were not so grave, and denial of foreign travel for employment would cause irreparable loss; continuance of the LoC amounted to abuse of process of law. Result: writ petition allowed; LoC quashed; no costs; pending IAs closed.

¶1

APHC010114602026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3327]

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 6298/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

ADDANKI DEEPAK KUMAR, S/O ADDANKI VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O 13-11-22/2, ST.ANN'S SCHOOL, KOBBARITHOTA, WARD NO.29, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

A N D

¶11

THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110001.

¶12

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

¶13

THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HYDERABAD, REP BY THE FRRO, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL BOL OFFICE NEAR CISF QUARTERS, MAMIDIPALLY, SHAMSHABAD, HYDERABAD - 500005.

¶14

THE ARUNDALPET POLICE STATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER – 522002

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Look-Out Circular (LoC) issued by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Originator Ref. No. 2025/10031/00009742, dated 23.09.2025 and LOC No.2025436587, notifying the Petitioner as

¶17

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶18

¶19

an accused who is to be detained and handed over to Local Police as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM.No.25016/10/2017-lmm (pt), dated 22.02.2021 and Consequently set aside the said Look-Out Circular (LoC) issued by the RespondentNos.2 and 3 vide Originator Ref. No. 2025/10031/00009742, dated 23.09.2025 and LOC No.2025436587 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 Look-Out Circular (LoC) issued by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Originator Ref. No. 2025/10031/00009742, dated 23.09.2025 and LOC No.2025436587, and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶29

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Look-out Circular (LoC) vide Originator Ref. No.2025/10031/00009742, dated 23.09.2025 and LoC No.2025436587 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, notifying the Writ Petitioner as an accused, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Guidelines governing the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021 and consequently, set-aside the said Look-out Circular.

¶32

It is the case of Writ Petitioner that he worked in Amazon in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and also in Bangalore in various roles; that the parents of Writ Petitioner run educational institutions; that marriage of Writ Petitioner was performed with one Mekathoti Rishika on 09.10.2019 at Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, both of them left India for USA on 14.10.2019 to lead conjugal life. Subsequently, disputes cropped up between them, and the Writ Petitioner filed OP No.141 of 2025 before the IV Additional District Court, West Godavari at Tanuku seeking dissolution of marriage; that as a counter-blast, a case in Crime No.504 of 2025 of

¶33

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶34

¶35

Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 79 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act, 1961’) was registered against him.

¶36

(b) The Writ Petitioner vide Order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.25788 of 2025 by this Court, obtained order for reissuance of passport without reference to the subject crime registered against the Writ Petitioner.

¶37

¶38

to travel to Melbourne, Australia, the officials of 3^rd respondent informed that pursuant to registration of subject crime, Look-out Circular has been opened against the Writ Petitioner vide Originator Ref.No.2025/10031/00009742, dated 23.09.2025 and LoC No.2025436587, notifying the Writ Petitioner as an accused, to be detained and handed over to the Local Police. There exists no material circumstance or reasonable ground to presume that the Writ Petitioner is evading arrest, or he is not appearing before the Court or he is likely to leave the Country to evade arrest, thereby, the Look-out Circular was opened in a mechanical and routine exercise. The respondent No.2 failed to justify invocation of

¶39

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶40

¶41

Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that

¶43

parents of Writ Petitioner are residing in India and running education institutions and they are also pursuing the crime pending for investigation. The Look-out Circular against the Writ Petitioner is causing hurdles for Writ Petitioner to travel and in each and every Airport he would be stopped and his credentials would be questioned by the Immigration and he would be restrained in the Airport without issuing boarding pass. Learned counsel further submits that the Writ Petitioner would undertake that he would cooperate in the proceedings pending before the Court below.

¶44

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government

¶45

Pleader for Home contended that if the Look-out Circular issued against the Writ Petitioner is cancelled, there is every likelihood of Writ Petitioner avoiding judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶46

Heard. Perused the record.

¶47

In the case on hand, Writ Petitioner concedes that a

¶48

case in Crime No.504 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur

¶49

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶50

¶51

was registered against him and other family members and in the said crime, notice under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) was issued to the Writ Petitioner on 07.10.2025 and subsequently, the Writ Petitioner and his parents are available to the investigation in the subject crime. It is the contention of Writ Petitioner that he worked with Amazon Company in Bangalore and also in various countries viz. USA and UK, at different roles and due to the Look-out Circular, he could not travel abroad as a part of his employment.

¶52

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that this Court vide Order, dated 24.09.2025 in Writ Petition No.25788 of 2025 directed the respondents to consider and process the application made by the Writ Petitioner for reissuance of passport strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 without reference to Crime No.504 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur. At present, there is no Non-Bailable Warrant or any coercive process pending against the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner is fully cooperating with the Investigating agency. The Writ Petitioner states that he has to travel abroad for the purpose of his employment and professional responsibilities and it is due to the

¶53

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶54

¶55

Look-out Circular, his movements to travel abroad were restricted, due to which, there is every possibility of losing his employment. In such circumstances, Look-out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s Fundamental Right of movement.

¶56

8. In Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another¹ the

¶57

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

¶58

“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.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶62

¶63

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.”

¶64

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

¶65

of India & others² , it was held thus: (paragraphs 20, 21 and 22).

¶66

“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 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

¶67

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

¶68

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶69

¶70

"... 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.

¶71

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.

¶72

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.”

¶73

This Court in a similar set of facts and circumstances

¶74

of a case made in Lagubeeru Venkata Aruna Kiran v. The Union

¶75

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶76

¶77

of India and others³ , quashed the Look-out Circular issued against the petitioner therein on the ground that the offence alleged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not so grave and if the petitioner therein is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LoC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

¶78

Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look-out Circular, personal liberty to travel of a 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 498A IPC/Sections 85, 79 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner(s), against whom the Look-

¶79

out Circular was opened, is/are cooperating with the investigation/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

¶80

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

¶81

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶82

¶83

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.

¶84

In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Sections 85, 79 read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the alleged offences are not so grave. If Writ Petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LoC against him, Writ 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 offence, 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 Writ Petitioner herein.

¶85

SRK, J W.P.No.6298 of 2026

¶86

¶87

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶88

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 abuse of process of law.

¶89

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Look-out Circular issued against the Writ Petitioner, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶91

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 9^th March, 2026.

¶92

DNB

Addanki Deepak Kumar v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Addanki Deepak Kumar v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Lakshmi Kumar Vs Union of India

Karnati Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Union of India

Telagamsetti Reddamma Vs the Union of India

Bellam Ravichandra Vs Union of India

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vs Union of India

Pediredia Sagar, Vs Union of India