Court quashes LOC, prohibits passport impoundment without court order. Petitioner must inform agency on arrival.

The court quashed the lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner and directed the investigating agency not to impound the petitioner's passport without a court order. The petitioner was instructed to inform the investigating agency upon arrival in Agartala and comply with any summons or court orders. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner.
2. Alleged harassment and intimidation by police.
3. Validity of requests to impound/cancel the petitioner’s passport.
4. Petitioner’s compliance with investigation notices.
5. Petitioner's right to travel and personal liberty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the lookout circular (LOC):
The petitioner challenged the LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration against him, asserting it was unjustified and aimed at restricting his travel to India. The respondents justified the LOC by citing ongoing investigations in multiple criminal cases against the petitioner. The court found that the LOC was not supported by sufficient reasons, as the petitioner did not attempt to evade arrest or leave the country to avoid investigation. The court referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Sumer Singh Salkan, which outlines the conditions under which an LOC can be issued, emphasizing that the petitioner was not absconding and had undertaken to join the investigation upon arrival in India. Consequently, the court directed the withdrawal of the LOC within 24 hours of the order.

2. Alleged harassment and intimidation by police:
The petitioner alleged that his parents were harassed by police, and he was intimidated due to his news portal's fearless reporting. The respondents denied these allegations, stating that the police actions were in the interest of justice. The court noted that the petitioner’s parents had previously approached the High Court for relief, and the police were directed to act considerately. The court found no substantial evidence to support the petitioner’s claims of harassment and intimidation.

3. Validity of requests to impound/cancel the petitioner’s passport:
The petitioner argued that the requests to impound his passport were illegal under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967. The respondents claimed that the petitioner's passport should be impounded due to pending criminal cases. The court observed that the Indian Passport Authority had no jurisdiction to cancel a passport issued by the Consulate General of India in New York. Furthermore, the court found that the conditions under Section 10(3)(e) and (h) of the Passport Act were not met, as there were no pending warrants or summons against the petitioner. The court held that the requests to impound the passport were without legal basis.

4. Petitioner’s compliance with investigation notices:
The respondents contended that the petitioner was evading investigation notices issued under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner countered that his inability to travel to India was due to the COVID-19 lockdown and not deliberate evasion. The court accepted the petitioner’s explanation and noted his willingness to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in India. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s liberty should not be curtailed without just cause.

5. Petitioner's right to travel and personal liberty:
The court underscored the importance of personal liberty and the right to travel, stating that any action curtailing these rights must be reasonable and proportionate. The court found that the LOC and attempts to impound the passport were disproportionate and not justified by the circumstances. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to travel freely and that any further actions against his passport must be ordered by a competent criminal court.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the LOC issued against the petitioner and directed the investigating agency not to impound the petitioner’s passport without a court order. The petitioner was instructed to inform the investigating agency upon his arrival in Agartala and comply with any summons or court orders. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were ordered.

---