High Court quashes Look Out Circular against Petitioner, imposes travel conditions

The High Court quashed the Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner, citing insufficient evidence to support concerns of the Petitioner fleeing or not cooperating with investigations. The Court imposed specific conditions for the Petitioner's future travel abroad, requiring notification of travel plans, an undertaking to return, and appearance before investigating agencies upon return.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Look Out Circular (L.O.C.) issued against the Petitioner.
2. Compliance with Ministry of Home Affairs (M.H.A.) guidelines for issuing L.O.C.
3. Allegations and charges against the Petitioner under various laws.
4. Conditions for the Petitioner's travel abroad.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Look Out Circular (L.O.C.) issued against the Petitioner:
The Petitioner questioned the L.O.C. issued in Enforcement Case Information Report (E.C.I.R.) No. ECIR/PJZO/03/2022 dated 28.01.2022. Initially, the Petitioner was unaware of the L.O.C.'s issuance but had strong apprehensions, leading to the petition. The Respondent admitted that the L.O.C. was issued on 04.02.2022. The Petitioner was not accused in the prosecution complaint under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L.A.), and no scheduled offences under P.M.L.A. were invoked in the charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch.

2. Compliance with Ministry of Home Affairs (M.H.A.) guidelines for issuing L.O.C.:
The Respondent claimed the L.O.C. was in accordance with M.H.A. guidelines. However, the affidavit in reply did not elaborate on whether the safeguards provided in the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 27.10.2010 were complied with, especially since no prosecution complaint was filed against the Petitioner under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A.

3. Allegations and charges against the Petitioner under various laws:
An F.I.R. No.10/2022 was registered alleging offences under Sections 420, 408, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Petitioner was arrested and later enlarged on bail. The Directorate of Enforcement registered the E.C.I.R. based on this F.I.R. The charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch did not press charges under Sections 420, 120-B, 408 of I.P.C. or Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but only under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976.

4. Conditions for the Petitioner's travel abroad:
The Petitioner applied to modify the bail conditions regarding travel outside Goa, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court directed the Petitioner to inform the Respondent of his travel itinerary and details of persons he will visit, file an undertaking to return by a specified date, and appear before investigating agencies upon return.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned L.O.C. dated 04.02.2022, citing lack of material to sustain apprehensions about the Petitioner fleeing from justice or not cooperating with investigations. The Court directed the Petitioner to comply with specific conditions for any future travel abroad. The rule was made absolute with no order for costs.

---