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

The HC allowed a petition seeking withdrawal of a Look Out Circular (LOC) that had been in place for over three years. The court held that LOCs can only be issued against persons who are deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court despite non-bailable warrants, coupled with likelihood of leaving the country. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the investigating agency and no trial had commenced, the conditions for maintaining the LOC were not met. The court found the continued LOC violated fundamental rights to life and personal liberty, directing its withdrawal while requiring the petitioner to provide an undertaking to appear when required by the investigating agency.

---

---

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.

---