Look Out Circulars require credible material and subsisting proceedings; unsupported apprehension alone cannot justify their continuation.

A Look Out Circular may not be sustained where no prosecution complaint has been filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, no subsisting scheduled offence remains to support the money-laundering trigger, and no credible material shows non-cooperation or a real risk of absconding. The court found that the petitioner's connection with the proceedings had materially weakened, the alleged apprehension was unsupported by evidence, and the safeguards in the Ministry of Home Affairs circular governing Look Out Circulars were not shown to have been met. The Look Out Circular was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner was liable to be quashed in the absence of any prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, any subsisting scheduled offence against him, or any material showing non-cooperation or risk of absconding.

Analysis: The petitioner's connection with the money-laundering proceedings had materially weakened: no prosecution complaint was filed against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the police charge sheet did not sustain the scheduled offences said to trigger the money-laundering regime. The record also did not show any breach of bail conditions, any failure to cooperate with the investigating agencies, or any concrete material justifying the apprehension that he would evade the process of law. The Court found the respondent's apprehensions unsupported by credible material, and noted that the safeguards contemplated by the Ministry of Home Affairs office memorandum governing Look Out Circulars were not demonstrated to have been satisfied.

Conclusion: The Look Out Circular could not be sustained and was quashed, in favour of the petitioner.

---