Court quashes Look-out Circular in corruption case, imposes conditions for cooperation and travel disclosure

The court quashed the Look-out Circular issued against the petitioner in a corruption case under Article 226. Despite being an accused, the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and agreed to certain conditions, including forfeiting a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). The court found the Look-out Circular unnecessary due to the petitioner's cooperation and imposed specific conditions for cooperation, travel disclosure, and FDR retention. Failure to comply would result in FDR forfeiture. The Trial Court was directed to return the petitioner's passport, and miscellaneous applications were deemed unnecessary and disposed of.

---

---

Issues involved:
Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of Look-out Circular dated 16.05.2018 against the petitioner in a corruption case.

Analysis:
The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel, sought the quashing of the Look-out Circular issued by the respondent in a corruption case. The counsel for both parties presented arguments before the court. It was acknowledged by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI that the petitioner was an accused in the case. However, a previous court order had directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner, a directive that was still in effect. The record indicated that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation prior to the issuance of the Look-out Circular. The petitioner also agreed to forfeit a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) amounting to Rs. 6 crores, which was deposited as security. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner assured the court that the petitioner would continue to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with evidence, and not influence any witnesses. The court noted the petitioner's regular participation in the investigation and deemed the Look-out Circular unnecessary. Specific conditions were imposed on the petitioner, including cooperating with the Investigating Officer, providing travel details if going abroad, and keeping the FDR amount in place until a specified date. Failure to comply with these conditions would result in forfeiture of the FDR. The Trial Court was instructed to return the petitioner's passport. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and the registry was tasked with communicating the order to relevant authorities.

Additionally, various miscellaneous applications related to the case were deemed unnecessary in light of the writ petition's outcome and were consequently disposed of.

---