Lookout circular travel restrictions against a non-accused were unsustainable absent lawful basis and supporting material.

A lookout circular and related travel restrictions against a person not shown to be an accused were held unsustainable because the executive instructions governing such measures contemplated use in cognizable offences and did not permit continued restraint without a lawful basis. The record showed that the person had already appeared before the investigating agency and had travelled abroad on earlier occasions without objection, while no material justified the continued restriction or brought the case within any recognised exceptional category. The writ court held that such executive action was subject to judicial review and granted relief, while leaving the investigating agency free to seek cooperation and proceed in accordance with law if incriminating material later emerged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lookout circular and resulting travel restrictions imposed on a person not arraigned as an accused were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The petitioner was not shown to be an accused in any criminal case. The record showed that he had appeared once before the investigating agency and had thereafter travelled abroad on several occasions without restraint. The applicable executive instructions governing look out circulars contemplated recourse in cognizable offences and, in the absence of such a basis, did not permit detention or prevention from leaving the country. The writ court could judicially review such executive action, and the respondents had not shown any material justifying the continued travel restraint or bringing the case within the exceptional categories recognised by the instructions.

Conclusion: The travel restriction and lookout circular were unsustainable. Relief was granted in favour of the petitioner, with liberty to the investigating agency to require his cooperation and to proceed in accordance with law if incriminating material was later found.

---