Petitioner wins withdrawal of three-year Look Out Circular after cooperating with investigation and no trial commencing

Kartik Tayal Versus Central Bureau of Investigation

Kartik Tayal Versus Central Bureau of Investigation - TMI Issues:
1. Petition seeking withdrawal of Look Out Circular (LOC).
2. Legal validity of continuing the LOC against the petitioner.
3. Fundamental right violation due to the LOC.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a law graduate and practicing advocate, sought a writ of Mandamus to withdraw the LOC issued against him. The petitioner's background, travel history, and the ongoing investigation against his father were detailed. The petitioner argued that the LOC hindered his right to travel abroad for medical treatment, although he had always returned within the specified period during previous travels.

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) supported the LOC, expressing concerns about the petitioner potentially fleeing the country to evade legal proceedings. The CBI highlighted suspicions regarding the petitioner's involvement in selling shares for money laundering purposes. The CBI contended that if the petitioner escaped to a country without an extradition treaty, it would impede the investigation.

3. The High Court analyzed the legal framework governing LOCs, emphasizing the right to travel abroad as a facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court reviewed precedents and instructions for opening LOCs, noting that an LOC can be justified if the individual is evading arrest or trial and likely to leave the country. In this case, the petitioner had cooperated with investigations, had not evaded the law, and had a lawful travel history, undermining the necessity of the LOC.

4. Ultimately, the Court found that the grounds required for an LOC did not exist in the petitioner's case, leading to a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court directed the withdrawal of the LOC but imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating agency and appear before the trial court when necessary. The petitioner was also instructed to provide contact details and inform authorities of any international travel.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, ordering the withdrawal of the LOC against the petitioner due to the lack of legal grounds for its continuation, while ensuring the petitioner's compliance with investigative and judicial processes.