Look Out Circulars: quashed where necessity and proportionality fail, subject to cooperation and conditional safeguards.

Look Out Circulars impinging on the fundamental right to travel were assessed against principles of necessity, proportionality and fairness; where no FIR exists, demonstrable risk of absconding is absent, complainant withdrew the complaint and the subject has cooperated, continuation of an LOC is unjustified. The Court applied Vineet Gupta principles and set aside the LOC while granting conditional relief: quashing the LOC subject to an affidavit of cooperation, production of documents, furnishing itinerary and contact details, advance notice for appearances, and a mechanism for the Investigating Officer or court to restrain travel or reissue an LOC if justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner is arbitrary or unjustified and liable to be quashed, and if so, on what conditions the LOC should be set aside.

Analysis: The Court examined the law governing LOCs as articulated in Vineet Gupta v. Union of India and other precedents which treat LOCs as a coercive executive measure impinging on the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The factors considered include absence of a criminal FIR, absence of demonstrable necessity or proximate likelihood of absconding, cooperation of the subject with investigations, family and other ties to the country, and the need for necessity, proportionality, fairness, and due process before continuation of an LOC. On facts, there is no FIR against the petitioner; the petitioner holds tax residence abroad but has extensive family ties in India; the petitioner has previously been permitted to travel by the Court on multiple occasions and has travelled; the original complaint was withdrawn by the complainant; and the petitioner has undertaken to cooperate and appear as required. Balancing the State's interest and the petitioner's fundamental rights, and applying the principles of necessity and proportionality, the Court concluded that continuation of the LOC was not justified but that conditional relief was appropriate to safeguard any legitimate investigative requirement. The Court therefore set aside the LOC while reserving the respondents' right to reopen or reissue protective measures if circumstances so warrant, and imposed conditions requiring an affidavit undertaking cooperation, production of documents, furnishing of travel itinerary and contact details, advance notice for appearances, and a mechanism for the Investigating Officer or Court to direct restraint or reissue an LOC if reservations remain.

Conclusion: The Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is quashed and set aside subject to conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with investigations and comply with procedural requirements; liberty is reserved to the respondents to reopen or reissue an LOC if justified.

---