Allowed

Khaja Moinuddin Shaik v. Union of India

Telangana HC8 Feb 2024WP/2028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner under a Look Out Circular issued at police request, who had been arrested and later released on bail with compliance to bail terms, sought its removal. The court allowed the writ and directed the SHO and Commissioner to write to Immigration Authorities to close the LOC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; SHO Banjara Hills directed to letter the Commissioner, and Commissioner to write Immigration Authorities to close the LOC; no costs.

Khaja Moinuddin Shaik Vs Union of India — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEC.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 202E^{OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Khaia ttrloinuddin Shaik. S/o- Shariff^{Mohammad,Aged about55 years, Occ;} griinesi, l-l.No.3-105, Pedavadlapudi, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh'

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia, Represented^{by its Secretary, N,inistryof Home Affairs, North} *^{Block, New Delhi.}

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its PrincipalSecretary,Home Department'} Secretariat Buildings,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Joint Commissioner^{of Police, CCS' DD' Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Station House Officer,^{Police Station Banjara Hills Hyderabad'}

¶15

The Bureau of lmmigration,^{Ministryof Home Affairs, Government of lndia.}

¶16

-ManagerinRadhaSmeltersPVt.Ltd.HavingregisteredofficeatS-2.269/5'Aravind Kumar Shaw,^{S/o. Lakhan Shaw,Aged about 45 y.gars'.} Qc1-^^^,^ Fiot ftl"o.ZS and 76, Sagar Co^{- Operative Sotiety,Road No 2, Baniarahills,} Hyderabad, Telangana-505208.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order/s^{more particularlyone in the nature of writ of} Mandamus, declaring action^{of respondent No.5 in issuing the Look out circular} No. 238/LOC/CCS-DD/HYD/2019,^{dated 29t1ot2o19 at the requestof respondent} No.3 and imposing a^{travelban on the petitionerand further continuingthe} Lookout circular beyond^{the period of one year as illegal,arbitrary,un-} constitutional, highhanded^{without authority without jurisdiction and in violation of}

¶19

principles of natural^justice apart^{from being violative} of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia,^{in violation of the provisions} of^passport act 1967 and consequently to set aside the^Look Out Circular No. 238/LOC/CCSDD|HYD|2O1!, dzted 2911012019^{issued by the respondent} No.s against the petitioner.

¶20

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition Un<ler Section^{151 CPC praying} that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file,i in support^{of the petition,the} High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to travel by suspending the Lookout Circular No. 238/LOC/CCS-DDtHYOI2019,^{daled 2911012019issued by} the respondent No.3 against petitioner, rending^{disposal of the writ petition.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner :^{SRI M.P.K.ADITYA}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 & 5 : SRtGADI PRAVEEN} KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENEIIAL OF^INDIA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 : AGP FOR HOME}

¶25

CounBel for the Respondent^{No.6 : --}

¶26

The Court made th,r following^ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.2O28 of 2O24

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the

¶31

Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶32

"...{o issue a writ or ord.er/ s mnre panticularlg one tn the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring action oJ respondent No 5 in issuing the lnok Out Circalar No.238/ LOC/ CCSDD/HYD/2019 dated 29.10.2019 at the request of respon<lent No.3 and imposing a trauel ban ot th.e petitioner and futther continuing the Lookout ciraiar beyond. the peiod of ofte gear as illegal, arbitrary, uaconstitutional, highhanded uithout authoitg, tutthout luisdiction and in uiolation oJ pinciples of natural^justice a{,atl from being uiolatiue of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of tlw Constitution of India, in uiolatton of tLLe prouisions of Passport Act 1967 and consequently to set aside the Inok Out Circalar No. 238/ LOC/ CCS-DD/HyD/2019 dated 29-tO 2019 issued bg the respond.ent No.s agaist the petitioner..."

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that he was arrayed as

¶34

Accused No.3 in Crime No.494 of 2Ol9 on the file of Banj ara Hills Police Station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Aravind Kumar Shaw, for the offences puni'shable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of IPC. It is further case of the petitioner that during the course of investigation, police a-rrested him and sent to judicial remand and thereafter, he filed bail application uide CrI.M.P.No.2525 of 2023 on the file of learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and

CV8R,J wp-2028_2024

the sarne was allowed uid.e order dated 02.0g.2023 and he was released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2O,()OO/- (Rupees Twent5r Thousand only) with two suretier; for the like sum each to the satisfaction of Investi6,ating Ofhcer. Further, he was directed to appear before the Investigating Offrcer on every Saturday between 5:0O P[{ and 8:OO pM for two months or till filing of the charge sheet and that he shall cooperate with the Investig,rting Agency.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner travels to USA and other foreign countries for attendin g business meetings. But, at the request of respondent No.3, the respondent No.S had issued Lookout Circular (for short,^,LOC) No.238lLOCICCS-DD/ HyD/2O19, dated 29.10.2019, and imposed a travel ban on the petitioner. It is further submitted tlat the petitioner is regularly appearing before the concerned officer as per the directionr; of the learned Sessions Judge. Despite the same, LOC issu:d against the petitioner is still continuing, due to *iii.h th., petitioner is not in a position to travel to foreign

¶40

¶41

CV8R,J wp _2024_2024

¶42

countries and thereby affecting his livelihood. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in continuing LOC against the petitioner, even after submission of explalation by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 4l-A of Cr.P.C, IS contrary to the Circular Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police uile C. No.3O89 / C -3 I IP / CID / 20 19 -22, dated 0 1.07. 2022 and it also amounts to violation of petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent No.5 has issued Oflice Memorandum, dated 22.O2.2021 and as^per Clause(M)(v) of the said Office Memorandum, "whenever the subject of LOC is arrested or the purpose of the LOC is over, a deletion request shall be sent by the Originator immediately to the concerned authorities". Since the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.494 of 2019 and subsequently he was enlarged on bail by learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad tn Crl.M.P.No.2525 of 2O23, dated 02.Oa.2023, his case has

w,B

CVBR,I wp_2024 _2024

to be^,:onsidered in terms of^{Ofhce Memorandum, dated} 22.O2.2,O2r.

¶47

The learned counsel for the^{petitioner relying upon} the Circular Memorandum issued by the^{DirectorGeneral} of Police in C.No.3O89/C-3/IP/ClD/2019-22,^dated Ol.O7.tlo22, stated that^{wheneverSection 41-A Cr.P.C} notice is issued to a person, the^{concernedpolice shall} addresr; a Ietter to the Commissioner^andthe Commissioner, in turn shall address a^{letter tothe} Immigration Authorities to^close the^{LOCissued against} such pr:rson.

¶48

P,:rused the material on record.

¶49

Almittedly, the petitioner herein was^remandedto judicia.l custody and subsequently, he was released on bail subject to certain terms and conditions.^{It is not the case} of the :-espondents that the^{petitionerhas violatedany of} the terrns and conditions imposed^{by the learnedV} Additio eal Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad, while} granting bail to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2525 of^2023, dated 02.O8.2O23. ./

CVBR,J w9-2028-2024

7 . In view of the said circurnstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent No.4-Station House Ofhcer, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, is directed to address a letter to the Commissioner and the Commissioner in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC issued against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶55

petition shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGIsTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶57

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To 1. The Secretary, Union^{of lndia, Ministryof HomeAffairs, North Block, New} Delhi.

¶60

1. ihe Principal Secretary,^{Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,} State of Telangana at^Hyderabad.

¶61

3 The Joint Comhissionei^{of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.}

¶62

4 The Station House Officer,^{Police Station Banjara Hills,Hyderabad'} 5 The Bureau of lmmigration,^{Ministry of HomeAffairs' G-overnmentof lndia'} b Two CC's to G.P for^{Home, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad.^(OUT)

¶63

7 Oire CC to Sri M.P.K.Aditya,^Advocate IOPUCI 8 One CC to Sri Gadi^{Praveen Kumar, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENOF INDIA} [oPUC]

¶64

o Two CD Copies

¶65

SA GJP "\y

HIGH COUITT

DATED:08ltl2l2024

ORDER

? ? ii. .,. .?1, I
oo
*
t us i- ^.-

WP.No.2Ozti of 2024

ALLOWING THE W.P

WITHOUT C,CSTS.

.-,^

Khaja Moinuddin Shaik v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Moinuddin Shaik v. Union of India

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

Mohd Abdul Khaleel Vs The State Of Telangana

Mr. Katkuri Laxma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Lavanya Vs The state of Telangana

A.B.S. Sastry Vs The State of Telangana

Medi Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Gurram Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana