Konatham Dileep Reddy Konatham Dileep vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 112 Tel

Telangana High Court

Konatham Dileep Reddy Konatham Dileep vs The State Of Telangana on 7 May, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

        HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
                               AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO


                 WRIT APPEAL No.552 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda)

Heard Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior designated

counsel representing Sri K.Prateek Reddy, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on record

and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing

on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred

against the order, dated 01.05.2025 passed in

W.P.No.13822 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

"Learned Government Pleader for Home takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and submits that there are about 10 cases registered against the petitioner and thus, seeks time to file counter in the matter. List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2025."

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

DISCUSSION:-

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that on

18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl Ashburn, Virginia, USA, a

special function for book launch is scheduled on the

occasion of 15th Death Anniversary of appellants' father

one late Sri Kontham Bakka Reddy and therefore, it is

necessary for the appellant to travel and stay in the

United States of America between 09.05.2025 to

11.06.2025 for the said purpose, but however, though

the appellant sought an interim direction in

W.P.No.13822 of 2025 directing the respondents not to

take any coercive steps against the appellant by

suspending the Lookout circular/lookout notice, if any,

issued against the appellant/petitioner to visit USA for

a period of two (02) months, no interim order was

granted in favour of the appellant since this Court vide

its order, dated 01.05.2025 based on the

representation of the learned Government Pleader that

'10' cases are registered against the

appellant/petitioner and duly considering the request

of the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing

on behalf of the respondents for grant of time for filing

counter affidavit directed the matter to be listed after

summer vacation for the purpose of filing counter

affidavit in the matter and aggrieved by the same, the

appellant was constrained to file the present Writ

Appeal.

4. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant however disputes the said

submission made by the learned Government Pleader

for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents that

appellant was involved in ten (10) criminal cases

referring to the statement and the averments at page

No.6 of the affidavit filed by the appellant/petitioner in

support of the present Writ Appeal and contends that

out of '10' cases referred to at page No.6 of the tabular

statement, it is only in respect of cases at serial No.1 &

10 that the appellant is arrayed as an accused and in

the rest of the other cases No.2 to 9, the appellant is

not arrayed as an accused and therefore, the appellant

is entitled to travel abroad.

5. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant mainly puts-forth the following

submissions:-

i) In view of the order of this Court, dated 01.05.2025

passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025, the appellant is not in

a position to attend the book launch function of

appellant's late father on 18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl

Ashburn, Virginia, USA and therefore, serious injustice

is caused to the appellant.

ii) The present writ appeal is maintainable as per the

judgment of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High

Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of

M.P. and others reported in AIR 2007 MP 276 and in

particular placed reliance on the observations at para

Nos.27 & 31 of the said judgment in support of

appellant's case.

iii) The present Writ Appeal is maintainable as per the

judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and Power

Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634, dated

14.03.2022 and in particular placed reliance on the

observations made at para No.19 of the said judgment.

iv) The impugned order in the present Writ Appeal,

dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 had

trappings of finality in as much as the said orders

adversely affected appellant's valuable right to life and

personal liberty.

v) The appellant is entitled for the relief as sought for

by the appellant in the present appeal and the appellant

should be permitted to travel abroad to attend the book

launch function of the appellant's late father, failing

which the very purpose of filing W.P.No.13822 of 2025

and the present Writ Appeal No.552 of 2025 would be

eventually defeated.

vi) Placing reliance on the order of this Court, dated

26.02.2024 passed in W.P. 9012 of 2023, and in

particular para No.12, it is contended that sub- para

"L" of the circular, dated 22.02.2021 has no application

to the present case even according to the respondents

herein, therefore, the respondents cannot restrict

appellant's/petitioner's right to travel abroad.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned

senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/petitioner contends that the present Writ

Appeal has to be allowed as prayed for.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing

on behalf of the respondents mainly puts-forth the

following submissions:-

i) The present Writ Appeal is not maintainable and

placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court, dated 03.03.2025 passed in W.A.No.244

of 2025 and in particular para No.4 for twin reasons,

firstly the present Writ Appeal is preferred against the

interlocutory order, secondly, the Writ Court dealt with

the criminal matter , since the subject issue pertains to

a lookout circular which is a criminal matter and

therefore, the Writ Appeal is not maintainable.

ii) The appellant should not be permitted to travel

abroad and the appellant is not entitled for any relief at

this stage and W.P.No.13822 of 2025 filed by the

appellant/petitioner has to be adjudicated finally.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned

Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of

the respondents contends that the present Writ Appeal

needs to be dismissed.

CONLCUSION:-

7. The Apex Court in judgment reported in 2013 (15)

SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at

para 13 observed as under :

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

8. The Apex Court way back in 1967, in Judgment

reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836, in "Satwant Singh

Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer

held that the right to travel abroad falls within the

scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and that no person can be

deprived of his right to travel except according to the

procedure established by law.

9. The Apex Court in "MENAKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR 1978 SC 597,

and in "SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA

(UOI) AND OTHERS" reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online

SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel

abroad is a part of a personal liberty.

10. In the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy v State,

reported in 2013 SCC online Mad 4092, it is observed as

under:

"9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. It is the fundamental right of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One's such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. In the celebrated case in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of persons to go

abroad. The phrase no one shall be deprived of his "life and liberty" except procedure established by law employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental right and human right. MENAKA GANDHI (supra) ushered a new era in the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'.

10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are antisocial elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arise to apprehend persons, who have ability to fly, and flee away from the country. So, L.O.C. orders are issued. It is an harmonius way out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.

11. The judgment of the Madhyapradesh High Court in

Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of M.P. and

others reported in AIR 2007 MP 276 and in particular

para Nos.27 & 31 are extracted hereunder:-

27. In the case of W.A. No. 69/2007 Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria v. State of M.P. and Ors., the Division Bench had taken note of the decision rendered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), and expressed the opinion that the refusal of the interim order had caused serious injustice to the appellants and hence, the appeal was maintainable.

31. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons we proceed to record our conclusions in seriatim:

(a) The decision rendered in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain (supra), does not lay down the law correctly and is hereby overruled.

(b) Any decision treading on the same path has to be deemed to have been overruled.

(c) The decisions rendered in Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria (supra) and Tejpal Singh (supra), enunciate the law correctly.

(d) The proviso to Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench.

(e) An appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(f) The guidelines given in the cases of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (supra), Deoraj (supra), Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. (supra), Subal Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) are to be kept in view while deciding the maintainability of an appeal.

(g) It should be borne in mind that instances given in the aforesaid decisions are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature, because various kinds/categories of orders may be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(h) The facts in each case, the nature and the character of the order are to be scrutinised to appreciate the trappings of the same.

12. The judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and

Power Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634,

dated 14.03.2022 and in particular para No.19 is

extracted hereunder:-

19. It has been held in Shah Babulal Khimji that most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of

finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and would be 'judgments' within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. However, there may be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality inasmuch as such orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. It has further been held that however, for such an order to be a 'judgment', an adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. Various illustrations of interlocutory orders have been given by this Court in para (120), which could be held to be appealable. This Court held that though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other, they cannot be treated as a 'judgment' unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. This Court has expressed in para (122) that though it had, by way of sample, laid down various illustrative examples of an order which may amount to a judgment, it would not be possible to give such an exhaustive list as may cover all possible areas. This Court, in the facts of the said case, held that an order of the Single Judge refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an ad-

interim injunction was undoubtedly a 'judgment' within the meaning of Letters Patent, both because Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC applies to internal appeals in the High Court and that such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

13. Taking into consideration the observations of the

Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted

above)reported in

i) 2013 vol15 SCC page 570

ii) 2019 vol2 SCConline SC 2048

iii) AIR 1967 SC 1836

iv) Para No.19 of the judgment reported in 2023 (1)

SCC 634 and

v) para No.27 of the Full Bench of the judgment of the

Madhyapradesh High Court, dated 21.03.2017 in

Arvind Kumar Jain and Others Vs. State of M.P.and

Others, and

vi) 2013 SCConline Madras 4092, this Court opines that

the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in

the present Writ Appeal.

14. This Court opines that the judgment relied upon by

the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on

behalf of the respondents has no application to the

facts of the present case since it pertains to a quash

petition and the present subject issue is not a criminal

matter and the subject issue in fact pertains to

appellant's right to life and personal liberty, and

therefore, the present Writ Appeal is maintainable. This

Court opines that the appellant cannot be deprived of

his right to life and personal liberty affecting

appellant's fundamental rights and human rights.

15. This Court opines that the present interlocutory

order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated

01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025, (referred

to and extracted above) is an order of moment and if

there is no interference by this Court in exercise of its

appellate power, there is likely to be an irreparable

injury or serious injustice and hence, this Court opines

that the present Writ Appeal is maintainable and

accordingly, sets-aside the order impugned dated

01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 (referred

to and extracted above) in exercise of its power under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, in view of the fact that

if the appellant is not permitted to travel abroad at this

stage to attend the book launch function of the

appellant's late father scheduled on 18.05.2025, it

would amount to depriving the appellant of his right to

life and personal liberty effecting appellant's

fundamental rights and human rights as well, since the

very purpose of the appellant in approaching this Court

by filing W.P.No.13822 of 2025 and the present Writ

Appeal No.552 of 2025 would be eventually defeated, if

the purpose for which the appellant approached this

Court is not served in the interest of justice.

16. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on

record that the appellant herein on an earlier occasion

approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30602 of 2024

and this Court passed interim orders, dated 30.10.2024

permitting the appellant herein to travel abroad for

"03" weeks upon suspension of the Lookout circular

issued against the appellant for "03" weeks by this

Court.

17. Taking into consideration:-

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

b) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts'

judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again

enlisted below:

i) 2013 vol15 SCC page 570

ii) 2019 vol2 SCConline SC 2048

iii) AIR 1967 SC 1836

iv) Para No.19 of the judgment reported in 2023 (1) SCC 634 and

v) para No.27 of the Full Bench of the judgment of the Madhyapradesh High Court, dated 21.03.2017 in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others Vs. State of M.P.and Others, and

vi) 2013 SCConline Madras 4092.

c) The order, dated 30.10.2024 passed in

W.P.No.30602 of 2024 where under the appellant

herein on an earlier occasion travelled abroad.

d) In the light of the discussion and conclusion

arrived at para Nos.3 to 16 of the present judgment.

e) The fact on record that it is not the case of the

respondents that departure of the appellant from India

will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and

integrity of India.

The Writ Appeal is allowed, the order impugned,

dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 is

set-aside, and I.A.No.02 of 2025 and I.A.No.03 of 2025

are ordered as prayed for on the following conditions:-

i) The appellant/petitioner is permitted to travel

from Hyderabad to USA between 09.05.2025 to

11.06.2025 and shall return back to Hyderabad on

11.06.2025.

ii) The appellant shall provide the travel details

and place of stay to the respondents herein.

iii) The appellant shall provide necessary details

regarding appellant's properties and bank

accounts to the respondents herein.

iv) The appellant shall file an affidavit in the form

of an undertaking that he will abide by all the

conditions mentioned hereinabove.

It is further observed that the Lookout Circular

purportedly issued under FIR No.188/2024,

Chikkadpallly Police Station, 2138/2024, CCS,

Hyderabad, 2317/2024, CCS, Hyderabad, 104/2024,

Lokeshwaram Police Station, 477/2024, Nirmal Town

Police Station, 478/2024, Nirmal Town Police Station,

104/2024, Mudhole Police Station, 121/2024, Basara

Police Station, 631/2025, Gachibowli Police Station,

262/2025, Nirmal Town Police Station shall stand

suspended till 11.06.2025 to enable the

appellant/petitioner to travel to USA by abiding the

above said conditions.

Further, as soon as the appellant/petitioner

returns back to India on 11.06.2025, he shall inform

the same to the respondents herein. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

_________________________ JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

Date: 07.05.2025 Note: Issue CC by today b/o ktm