Court upholds Look Out Circular legality, directs cooperation with investigation, dismisses writ petition, offers LOC cancellation post-investigation.

The court upheld the validity of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner, emphasizing its legality as a coercive measure to secure his cooperation with the investigation. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and providing the option to seek cancellation of the LOC after the investigation's conclusion. The court clarified that the LOC was necessary due to the petitioner's failure to comply with bail conditions and highlighted that it did not arbitrarily violate his Fundamental Rights under the Constitution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for issuing LOC.
4. Impact of pending investigation and bail conditions on the issuance of LOC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) Issued Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the LOC issued on 06.10.2012 and extended till 26.05.2014 was unlawful and violated the Passports Act, 1967, and his Fundamental Rights. The court examined the procedural guidelines for issuing LOCs, emphasizing that LOCs are valid for one year unless renewed. The LOC against the petitioner was extended based on a request from the Central Crime Branch (CCB), which the court deemed valid. The court highlighted that the LOC serves as a coercive measure to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and is legally tenable.

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioner claimed that the LOC infringed on his right to travel abroad, a Fundamental Right under Article 21. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* and *Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam*, affirming that the right to travel abroad is a Fundamental Right. However, the court noted that this right could be restricted for valid legal reasons, such as ongoing investigations. The court concluded that the LOC did not arbitrarily violate the petitioner's rights, as it was issued to prevent him from evading trial.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Issuing LOC:
The petitioner argued that he should have been heard before the LOC was issued. The court clarified that in cases involving serious charges, such as those against the petitioner, the authorities are not required to provide a hearing before issuing an LOC. The court cited guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which allow LOCs to be issued without complete parameters in exceptional cases involving serious offenses. The court found that the procedural requirements were met, and the LOC was lawfully issued.

4. Impact of Pending Investigation and Bail Conditions on the Issuance of LOC:
The petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including not leaving the jurisdiction without police permission. The court noted that the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, leading to the cancellation of his bail. The court emphasized that the LOC was necessary to ensure the petitioner's presence for the ongoing investigation. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer. The court also stated that the LOC could be reviewed or canceled by the issuing authority or the trial court once the investigation is complete.

Conclusion and Directions:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the LOC. It directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and allowed him to seek the cancellation of the LOC from the relevant authorities or the trial court after the investigation is complete. The court reiterated that the LOC is a legitimate tool to ensure the petitioner's compliance with legal proceedings and does not indefinitely infringe on his Fundamental Rights.

---