Allowed

Mohamed Tharik Tajudeen v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2024WP/144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of a Look Out Circular (LOC) and passport seizure against a witness residing in Dubai. The Court held that since the petitioner is not an accused, the LOC must be quashed to protect the right to livelihood, directing the CBI to issue seven days' prior notice for any summons during the pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the Look Out Circular; directed CBI to give seven days' prior notice before summoning the petitioner to appear in India.

Mohamed Tharik Tajudeen Vs Union of India and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

37, WP 144-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by RUPALI RUPALI RAJESH RAJESH WAKODIKAR WAKODIKAR Date: 2024.03.21 15:37:54 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2024

¶4

Mohamed Tharik Tajudeen
Age : 32 years, Occ.: Service
R/a: House No.25, Kamaraj Road,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur,
Tamil Nadu – 612 001....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The Union of India
Through the Ministry of Home Affairs
2nd Floor, Exchange Building,
Gulam Marg, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001.

¶7

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation
Banking Securities Fraud Branch,
C-35/A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 098....Respondents

¶8

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Pradeep Dubey for the
Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, Addl.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶10

Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Mr. Nagesh Khedkar for the Respondent No.2-
CBI.

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
 DATE : 18th MARCH, 2024

1/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

ORAL ORDER (PER REVATI MOHITE DERE, J):

¶16

1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

3.By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent No.2 – CBI, to return the petitioner’s passport and to
quash the impugned Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) issued against the
petitioner, at the behest of the respondent No.2 – CBI.

¶19

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as
prayer clause (a) is concerned, which seeks return of the petitioner’s
passport, the same does not survive, in view of the order dated 27th
February, 2024 passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition. He
submits that pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.2 - CBI has
returned the petitioner’s passport.

2/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

5.As far as quashing of the LOC is concerned, Mr. Ponda,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has co-operated with the investigation and has attended the office of
the respondent No.2 – CBI. He submits that the petitioner cannot be
detained indefinitely, thereby impinging upon his right to livelihood.
He submits that the petitioner was called as a witness and not as an
accused in the case registered by the respondent No.2 – CBI. He
submits that the petitioner has been working in Dubai and as such, is
required to join his work, considering that he needs to earn his
livelihood.

¶24

6.Mr. Patil appearing for the respondent No.2 – CBI

¶25

opposed the petition. He submits that the investigation is still in
progress and will take about six months to complete. Learned APP
does not dispute the fact, that as of today, the petitioner is not an
accused in the CBI case and that the petitioner was summoned to the
respondent No.2’s office, as a witness. According to Mr. Patil, the

3/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation.

¶30

7.Perused the petition. It appears that the petitioner, an
Indian National, is residing in Dubai, for his livelihood, since 2011 till
2021. According to the petitioner, on 16th July, 2021, officers of the
respondent No.2–CBI came to the petitioner’s house in Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu and seized the petitioner’s passport and issued
a notice to the petitioner under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to appear for investigation. It appears that pursuant to the
said notice, the petitioner attended the office of the respondent No.2
– CBI on 2nd August, 2021. The petitioner, was thereafter, again
called on the next date i.e. on 3rd August, 2021. The petitioner was
again interrogated till 5.00 p.m. and was told that he would be
required to attend the office of the CBI as and when called. On 26th
April, 2022, when the petitioner attended the office of the respondent
No.2 – CBI, the petitioner was informed that his passport was
submitted to the Mumbai Court and that an LOC was issued against
him. It is the petitioners case that again on 21st June, 2023 and 22nd

4/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

June, 2023, the petitioner attended the office of the respondent No.2
CBI at Hyderabad.

¶35

8.It appears that the petitioner was called as a witness in the
case registered by the CBI as against some other accused. When we
questioned Mr. Patil, whether the petitioner is an accused in the said
case, he submits that as of today, investigation is in progress and that
the investigation is likely to take six more months. He submits that as
of today, the petitioner is not an accused, however, the investigation is
still in progress.

¶36

9.Pursuant to our order dated 27th February, 2024, the
petitioner’s passport was returned to the petitioner. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner was working in Dubai for the last 10 years.
Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has tendered an
affidavit-cum-undertaking of the petitioner dated 17th February, 2024.
The same is taken on record. In the said affidavit-cum-undertaking,
the petitioner has stated that he was required to travel to India

5/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

because of the critical health condition of his mother in 2021, when
the respondent No.2 visited his house and seized his passport. He has
further stated that on inquiry with the officers of the respondent
No.2, he was told that his passport was seized for investigation
purposes in connection with a case, being case No.
RC/BSM/2014/E/0004. He has further stated that he has co-operated
with the investigation and attended the office of the respondent No.2
as and when called. In para 4 and 5, the petitioner has stated as
under:

¶41

“4. I say that I have, by my letter dated 26.08.2022, being
Exhibit-F to the Petition, already informed the officers of
the Respondent No.2 that I am ready and willing to make
myself available for any further investigation.

¶42

5. I hereby undertake to this Hon’ble Court that I will
attend the Court summons and/or appear before the
concerned Court, as and when summoned as a witness and
also co-operate in with the Respondents as and when it is
required.”

¶43

10.The petitioner is in India since 2021. The petitioner was
summoned as a witness. The petitioner’s right to livelihood
guaranteed to him under the Constitution cannot be curtailed, more

6/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

particularly, when he is not an accused. Just because, investigation is
pending, cannot be a ground to deprive him of his livelihood. Mr.
Ponda, learned Senior Counsel, on the instructions of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner will attend the office of the respondent
No.2 – CBI once in two months (total six months) i.e. thrice in six
months, however, the CBI be directed to give atleast seven days prior
notice, so as to enable the petitioner to attend the office of the CBI.
The said submission is a fair submission and as such, we accept the
same.

¶48

11.Considering what is stated hereinabove, we allow the

¶49

petition and as such, quash and set aside the LOC issue against the
petitioner.

¶50

12.The petitioner to abide by the affidavit-cum-undertaking
tendered by him and the statement made by Mr. Ponda, on
instructions of the petitioner vis-a-vis coming to India, once in two
months, on notice of minimum seven clear days be given to the

7/8

Wakodikar

37, WP 144-2024.doc

petitioner.

¶55

13.Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. The petition
is accordingly allowed and is disposed of.

¶56

14.All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶57

order.

¶58

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶59

8/8

¶60

Wakodikar

Mohamed Tharik Tajudeen v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Tharik Tajudeen v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Roshan Bhimrao Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra

Roshan Bhimrao Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra

Ajit Ashok Kurane Vs State of Maharashtra

Amritpal Singh Khalsa and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajit Ashok Kurane Vs State of Maharashtra