Lookout circulars and passport impounding require statutory grounds; absent a pending warrant, coercive travel restraint was quashed.

A lookout circular is justified only when coercive process is necessary to secure a person who is evading arrest or avoiding appearance; here, no warrant of arrest was pending, the petitioner had undertaken to cooperate, and the non-appearance was linked to Covid-19 lockdown conditions, so the circular was quashed. Passport impounding or cancellation under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967 requires satisfaction of the statutory grounds; those grounds were not established on the facts, and the Indian passport authority could not cancel or impound a passport issued by the United States. The writ petition therefore succeeded, while the petitioner was directed to cooperate with investigation and proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the lookout circular issued against the petitioner was sustainable in the absence of a pending warrant of arrest and in the circumstances of the case; (ii) whether the respondents could seek impounding or cancellation of the petitioner's passport under the Passport Act, 1967, on the facts placed before the Court.

Issue (i): whether the lookout circular issued against the petitioner was sustainable in the absence of a pending warrant of arrest and in the circumstances of the case?

Analysis: A lookout circular is a coercive measure to secure the presence of a person who is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing despite coercive process. The record showed that no warrant of arrest was pending against the petitioner, the petitioner had given an undertaking to cooperate, and the inability to appear was linked to the Covid-19 lockdown. The reasons cited for issuance of the lookout circular were treated as insufficient to justify continued restraint on movement.

Conclusion: The lookout circular was not sustainable and was quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents could seek impounding or cancellation of the petitioner's passport under the Passport Act, 1967, on the facts placed before the Court?

Analysis: The power under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967, depends on the statutory grounds being satisfied. On the facts found, those grounds were not established. The Court also held that the Indian Passport authority could not cancel or impound a passport issued by the United States, and that the criminal-court based contingencies invoked by the respondents were absent.

Conclusion: No case was made out for impounding or cancelling the petitioner's passport.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the lookout circular was set aside, and the respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps for passport impounding without authority of law, while the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation and proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A lookout circular and related coercive travel restrictions can be sustained only where the statutory and factual preconditions are met, and passport impounding cannot be ordered unless the specific grounds under the governing passport law are established.

---