2024 (9) TMI 555 - HC - Money Laundering

Delhi High Court quashes Look-Out-Circular against petitioner who cooperated with ED investigations and obtained anticipatory bail

Jagadish Nangineni Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Union Of India and Bureau Of Immigration.

Delhi HC quashed a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) issued against a petitioner in a money laundering case involving violations of bilateral agreements with DTCP ... Money Laundering - Seeking to withdraw/recall of Look-Out-Circular (LOC) - scheduled offences - violation of the provisions of the Bilateral Agreement executed between the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP) - HELD THAT:- The circumstances in which the Look Out Notice can be opened has been explained in the decision of this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan [2010 (8) TMI 1083 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. It was observed that “Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal Laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest”. In the present case, none of the circumstances are made out. Though it has been insisted that the LOC was issued to secure presence of the Petitioner and that he is at flight risk and would evade trial, however, it is evident that the Petitioner has been duly cooperating with the Investigating Agency by furnishing the requisite documents and by responding to queries raised by the Respondent No. 1/ED. It is also recorded in Order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Apex Court that he has appeared more than 14 times before the ED. Notably, the Apex Court has already granted Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner vide Order dated 05.09.2022, with the directions that no coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against the petitioner. The Anticipatory Bail order also obliges the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating agency. Given these facts, that petitioner has joined investigations, is not evading the process of law and there is no likelihood of the petitioner leaving the country to evade trial; none of the grounds for continuing the LOC continue to exist. The Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner.2. Compliance with the guidelines for issuing LOC.3. Petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.4. Impact of the Supreme Court's anticipatory bail order on the LOC.5. Petitioner's risk of flight and evasion of trial.6. Petitioner's professional commitments requiring travel abroad.7. Constitutional rights of the petitioner.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Look-Out Circular (LOC) Issued Against the Petitioner:The petitioner sought to quash the LOC issued by the respondents, arguing that it was illegal, unlawful, and an unreasonable curtailment of his personal liberty. The LOC was issued on 15.02.2021 and renewed twice without proper application of mind, which the petitioner contended was arbitrary and mechanical.2. Compliance with the Guidelines for Issuing LOC:The petitioner argued that the LOC was issued in violation of the Office Memorandum of 2010 and its subsequent amendments issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The court referred to the decision in Sumer Singh Salkan, which states that a LOC can be issued in cognizable offences where the accused is evading arrest or not appearing in court despite Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) and other coercive measures, and there is a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. The court found that none of these circumstances were made out in the present case.3. Petitioner's Cooperation with the Investigation:The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by furnishing requisite documents and responding to queries. He had appeared more than 14 times before the ED, as recorded in the Supreme Court's order dated 05.09.2022. This demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.4. Impact of the Supreme Court's Anticipatory Bail Order on the LOC:The Supreme Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 05.09.2022, with directions that no coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against him. The anticipatory bail order also obliged the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called upon. The court noted that the continuation of the LOC would be in violation of this order.5. Petitioner's Risk of Flight and Evasion of Trial:The respondents argued that the petitioner was a flight risk and would evade trial, given his professional connections abroad, including the Chairman of Sobha Limited being based in Dubai. However, the court found that the petitioner had deep roots in India, including family, property, employment, and residence. He had also been a regular taxpayer and had not shown any intention to evade the process of law.6. Petitioner's Professional Commitments Requiring Travel Abroad:The petitioner, being the Managing Director of a reputed listed company, needed to travel abroad frequently for professional commitments. He had previously been permitted to travel to Dubai from 03.07.2023 to 07.07.2023, and the same was duly intimated to the ED. The court noted that the investigation would not be prejudiced if the petitioner were permitted to travel abroad temporarily.7. Constitutional Rights of the Petitioner:The petitioner argued that the issuance of the LOC violated his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court agreed that the LOC was an unreasonable restriction on his right to travel and personal liberty, especially given his cooperation with the investigation and the anticipatory bail order.Conclusion:The court quashed the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner, noting that none of the grounds for continuing the LOC existed. The petitioner was directed to keep the Trial Court informed about his place of residence and contact details. In the event of traveling abroad, he was to inform the concerned Trial Court by way of an application with his itinerary annexed and details of the intended place of residence abroad. The writ petition was allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.