Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner, ruling that such coercive measures must be used sparingly and with due consideration of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the issuing authority should apply its mind to the facts of each case before issuing an LOC.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Bagadi Santosh Kumar, is employed as a Manager at Capgemini Australia. On 01.02.2025, he returned to India to attend the last rites of his father-in-law. Upon arrival at Visakhapatnam Airport, he was informed of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against him. The LOC stemmed from Crime No.319 of 2024, registered by the Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for alleged offences under Sections 85 and 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS). This FIR was filed based on a complaint by the petitioner’s ex-wife, Smt. Thammineni Jyothsna Rani. Earlier, in 2021, she had also lodged a complaint against the petitioner, his mother, and sister, resulting in Crime No.670 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. That case was charge-sheeted and numbered as C.C. No.2568 of 2021 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner initiated divorce proceedings (F.C.O.P. No.23 of 2023), which concluded with a decree of divorce on 28.06.2023, dissolving the marriage. The ex-wife did not contest the divorce and remained ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioner married another woman on 07.08.2024. After this, his ex-wife lodged a fresh complaint leading to Crime No.319 of 2024. Based on this, the 5th respondent issued the LOC, which was forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that argued that the LOC was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21. He relied on Avinash Reddy Paladugu v. Bureau of Immigration and Supreme Court precedents, emphasising that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty. It was submitted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, furnished sureties, and responded to Section 41A CrPC notices. He contended that the LOC was a disproportionate measure, especially since the offences alleged were not grave enough to warrant it.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the LOC was issued due to the petitioner’s non-cooperation during the investigation. They claimed the petitioner’s family did not provide his Australian address, prompting the need for LOC.
Observations of the Court:
The Court referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, specifically Sub-para L, which allows issuance of LOCs in exceptional cases impacting sovereignty, security, integrity, or economic interests of India. The Court elaborated that a Look-Out Circular, which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interfere with his right to personal liberty and free movement, certainly has adverse civil consequences. It emphasised that such measures cannot be routine and must be based on compelling reasons.
Further, the Court observed that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, responded to summons, and even provided sureties. The Court stressed that the fundamental right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and cited Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to go abroad. The Court also drew reference to Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, reinforcing that the law presumes an accused to be innocent until proven guilty and that all fundamental rights, including liberty, must be preserved. Relying on E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy v. State, the Court noted, "Merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denuded of his Fundamental Rights. It is the fundamental right of a person to move anywhere he likes, including foreign countries." It reiterated that the balance between individual liberty and public interest must be maintained.
The Court remarked that the offences under Sections 85 & 82 of the BNS Act are not of such magnitude that they justify the extreme step of issuing a LOC, especially after the petitioner’s cooperation and the existing divorce decree. The Court further observed that the LOC guidelines mandate periodic review by the originating agency, and such LOCs must not be sustained if the factual circumstances do not support it. In this case, there was no material showing that the petitioner posed any threat or that his departure would prejudice the investigation.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the 5th respondent to withdraw the LOC forthwith.
Case Title: Bagadi Santosh Kumar vs Union of India & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4788 of 2025
Advocate for the Applicant: Dr. Sattaru Rajani
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. O. Udaya Kumar
Picture Source :
