[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ashish Garg vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~3 to 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5438/2021
ASHISH GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manohar Malik with Ms. Astha
Gumber, Advocates.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Asmita Kumar, Advocate for
R4/PNB.
+ W.P.(C) 4973/2022
ASHISH GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manohar Malik with Ms. Astha
Gumber, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Aryan Dhaka, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 2565/2025
ASHISH GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manohar Malik with Ms. Astha
Gumber, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026W.P.(C) 5438/2021 & connected matters By:PURUSHAINDRA
Page 1 of 5
15:11:09 KUMAR KAURAV
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain with Mr. Vivek
Gurnani, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
These petitions relate to the issuance of Look Out Circulars ('LOCs')
against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the
outset, submits that as per the liberty granted by the Court, he approached
the Special Court Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') and vide order
dated 31.08.2024, the LOCs which were issued at the instance of the CBI
were set aside.
2. He therefore confines his prayer only to the extent of LOCs issued at
the instance of the banks namely - State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and
Punjab National Bank and Enforcement Directorate ('ED').
3. It remains undisputed that the petitioner vide order dated 03.02.2025
was permitted to travel abroad between 14.02.2025 to 17.02.2025. It is
during his aforesaid travel to Dubai, that he was stopped at the airport and,
thereafter, he became aware of the LOC having been issued at the instance
of ED. He, therefore, had to file a separate W.P.(C) 2565/2025.
Furthermore, W.P.(C) 5438/2021 and WP(C) 4973/2022 relate to the LOCs
issued at the instance of the banks and the CBI.
4. Recently, this Court in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Union of India &
ors 1, while taking a note of various decisions inter alia, in Maneka Gandhi
2026 :DHC:1616
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026W.P.(C) 5438/2021 & connected matters By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:11:09 KUMAR KAURAV
v. Union of India2, Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director3 and Viraj
Chetan Shah v. Union of India4, has copiously reiterated that LOC is a
coercive executive measure that directly impinges upon the fundamental
right to travel, which forms an integral part of personal liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution. It was also emphasised that continuance of an LOC is
not indefinite and must withstand strict judicial scrutiny on the touchstone of
various factors like necessity, proportionality, fairness, and due process.
Thus, it was held that where the subject has cooperated with investigation
and there is no demonstrable requirement for restraint, continuation of the
LOC would be arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The relevant extract of the
aforenoted decision reads as under: -
"10.On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it
is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the
issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:
(i)LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial
impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet
of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC
must be exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only
upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing
Office Memoranda;
(ii)An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence
under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material
demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest
or judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood
of absconding;
(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office
Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed and may
be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where, the proposed
departure of subject poses a clear and grave threat to the sovereignty,
security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or economic interests in
a national or systemic sense, or the larger public interest;
(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing Director,
(1978) 1 SCC 248
2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699
2024 SCC Online Bom 1195
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026W.P.(C) 5438/2021 & connected matters By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:11:09 KUMAR KAURAV
or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks, would not
withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus, as of now, the
LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained and are liable
to be quashed;
(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to subject
the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny, balancing the
legitimate interests of the State with the individual‟s fundamental
rights, and to quash such circulars where the restraint imposed is found
to be arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in statutory backing, or
violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process.
Ultimately, the burden lies squarely upon the "originating agencies" to
justify, the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the restraint,
failing which such action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that
the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically
reviewed. Where it is evident from the record that the subject has
cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded the process of law,
and where no further interrogation or presence is demonstrably
required, the continued operation of an LOC would amount to an
unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty;
(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court is
not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a person
against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer Singh Salkan,
a person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the first instance,
required to join the investigation or surrender before the jurisdictional
Court, or otherwise satisfy the Court that the LOC is unwarranted. The
individual may also approach the authority which ordered issuance of
the LOC and seek its withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-
application of mind. An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating
authority and may also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or
the Court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon
an appropriate application."
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. In view thereof, the LOC's issued at the instance of the Banks are
wholly unsustainable, they therefore, are set aside. As of now, there is
nothing on record that would indicate that the petitioner is not cooperating
with the investigation being carried out by the ED. Even otherwise,
petitioner's counsel undertakes that he will fully cooperate with the
investigation with the ED, and if the charge-sheet is filed he will cooperate
with the trial court in conducting a speedy trial. He submits that he shall
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026W.P.(C) 5438/2021 & connected matters By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:11:09 KUMAR KAURAV
furnish an affidavit before the investigating agency, to that effect, if so
required.
6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, at this stage,
the Court finds that the purpose of issuance of the LOC has sufficiently been
served, and therefore, the LOC at the instance of the ED also deserves to be
quashed with the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall submit an affidavit before the Investigation
agency within a period of thirty days from today, specifically stating that he
shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear as and when he is
called for, unless his appearance is exempted by the authority on showing
sufficient reason.
(ii) He shall produce all documents if he is in possession thereto.
(iii) He shall not travel abroad unless he seeks the specific permission of
the Investigation Agency.
7. Liberty stands reserved to the ED to direct for reissuance of the LOC
in case the petitioner breaches any of the undertakings or further
circumstances so required.
8. With these directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Tr/mj
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026W.P.(C) 5438/2021 & connected matters By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:11:09 KUMAR KAURAV
