Court quashes Look Out Circular, allows travel with conditions. Security, sureties, and compliance required.

The court quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the applicant, permitting unrestricted travel with specified conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation. The applicant must provide security, sureties, and comply with agency requirements. The court emphasized the applicant's compliance history and lack of evidence supporting flight risk. The decision balanced investigative needs and personal liberty, ultimately recalling the LOC and disposing of the application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the applicant.
2. Modification of previous court orders to allow the applicant to travel to any country without limitation.
3. Ensuring compliance and enforcement of the court's order by the respondent.
4. Interim relief to suspend the LOC and permit travel pending the disposal of the application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC):

The applicant sought the quashing of the LOC issued by the respondent, arguing that he has always complied with investigation requirements and court orders. The applicant highlighted that he has appeared before the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) whenever summoned and has provided documents to the best of his ability. The ED, however, contended that the applicant is a flight risk and has not submitted all required documents, thus necessitating the LOC to ensure his presence for the ongoing investigation into money laundering.

The court referenced the guidelines and purpose of issuing LOCs, emphasizing that they are intended to secure the presence of individuals in investigations or trials. The court noted the applicant's consistent compliance with summonses and the lack of any substantial evidence from the ED to suggest that the applicant would evade investigation if the LOC were quashed. Therefore, the court found no justifiable reason for the continuation of the LOC and directed it to be recalled.

2. Modification of Previous Court Orders:

The applicant requested modifications to the orders dated 14.01.2022 and 05.03.2022 to permit unrestricted travel. The court acknowledged the applicant's compliance with previous travel permissions and the lack of any misuse of the liberty granted. The court balanced the investigation agency's need to conduct a fair investigation and the applicant's right to personal liberty and freedom of movement.

The court directed the applicant to furnish security and sureties as per the previous court orders and to appear before the investigating agency as required. Additionally, the applicant was instructed to continuously inform the investigating agency if he traveled outside Dubai, UAE.

3. Ensuring Compliance and Enforcement of the Court's Order:

The applicant sought directions for the respondent to ensure compliance with the court's order, including coordination with immigration authorities. The court did not explicitly address this issue in the reasoning but implied compliance by quashing the LOC and setting conditions for the applicant's travel and appearance before the investigating agency.

4. Interim Relief:

Pending the disposal of the application, the applicant requested interim relief to suspend the LOC and permit travel. The court's final decision to quash the LOC and allow the applicant to travel under specific conditions rendered the request for interim relief moot.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the LOC issued against the applicant, allowing him to travel freely while imposing conditions to ensure his cooperation with the ongoing investigation. The applicant was directed to furnish security, submit sureties, and appear before the investigating agency as required. The court struck a balance between the rights of the investigating agency and the applicant's personal liberty. The application was disposed of accordingly.

---