Sachin Gaur vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7967/2022 and CM APPL. 38814/2022, CM APPL.
22290/2023, CM APPL. 33469/2023, CM APPL. 66934/2024, CM
APPL. 3151/2025, CM APPL. 14402/2025, CM APPL. 56108/2025
& CM APPL. 31002/2026

Date of Decision : 08.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:


SACHIN GAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Manan
Popli, Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Atul
Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Ms.
Karuna Sharma, Ms. Apurva Gaur,
Mr. Pramendra Singh, Ms. Priya
Tripathi, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with
Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan and Mr
Syed Abdur Rahman, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, Mr. Sachin Gaur, has filed the present writ petition
seeking quashing of a Look Out Circular (“ LOC ”) issued at the instance of
the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“ SFIO ”), which is investigating the
affairs of Jaiprakash Associates Limited and its subsidiary Jaypee Infratech
Limited. The petitioner herein, was the whole-time-director in Jaypee
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50

Infratech Limited from 21.04.2007 to 31.01.2011 and whole-time-director &
CFO from 01.02.2011 to 21.12.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner left
the company Jaypee Infratech Limited and resigned from all positions vide
resignation letter dated 10.12.2016. The petitioner then started working in
M/s Kram Infracon Private Limited as is currently designated as Executive
President.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he received summons for the first
time on 15.02.2021 under Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013 from the
office of the SFIO, where he was directed to provide certain
information/documents with respect to the investigation and appear in
person. The petitioner duly complied with summons and submitted all
relevant information. It is the case of the petitioner that he has cooperated in
the investigation, and his statement was also recorded by the Investigating
Officer on 23.02.2021.
3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that with respect to same
investigation being carried out by the SFIO, LOCs were opened against
three of the family members. This Court in the case of Rekha Dixit v. Union
1 2
of India and Ors. , Mr. Pankaj Gaur v. Union of India and Ors . and
Sunny Gaur v. Union of India Through Ministry of Home Affairs and
3
Anr . , has set aside the respective LOCs against each one of them.
4. It is submitted that even during the pendency of the writ petition, the
petitioner was allowed to travel abroad as many as on five occasions. The
details of the aforesaid travel are extracted as under:
DETAILS OF TRAVEL ABROAD

1
Order dated 03.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 6534/2023
2
Order dated 10.05.2022 in W.P.(C) 14468/2021
3
Order dated 17.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 3607/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50

S. No. Date of Order Destination
Duration
(TO)
1.
29.08.2022
CM
APPL.32598/2022
United States of
America [USA]
10.09.2022 to
03.10.2022
2.
22.05.2023
CM
APPL.22290/2023
United Kingdom 15.06.2023 to
28.06.2023
3.
15.07.2024
CM
APPL.33760/2024
United States of
America (with
transit stay in
Germany)
12.08.2024 to
05.09.2024
4.
04.02.2025
CM
APPL.3151/2025
United Arab
Emirates
27.02.2025 to
05.03.2025
5.
06.08.2025
CM
APPL.41258/2025
United States of
America (with
transit stay in
United
Kingdom)
21.08.2025 to
01.09.2025

5. The submissions are opposed by Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents and he contends that keeping in mind
the seriousness of the allegations, the Court may not consider quashing the
LOC.
6. The respondents have not placed any material to demonstrate that the
petitioner poses a flight risk. The petitioner has substantial movable and
immovable assets in India. His entire family resides in India. He has been
permitted by this Court to travel abroad on previous occasions and has
returned to India on these occasions without any violation of the conditions
imposed.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50

4
7. This Court in Ritu Singhal v. Bureau of Immigration &Ors. has
while examining various aspects of the legal framework governing the
issuance, continuance and judicial review of LOCs, considered the decisions
5
in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director , Karti P. Chidambaram v.
6 7
Bureau of Immigration , Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India , Bank of
8 9
Baroda v. Sahil Chugh , Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India , Apurve
10
Goel v. Bureau of Immigration , Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of
11 12
India , Shalini Khanna v. Union of India , Puja Chadha v. Directorate
13 14
of Enforcement , Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration , Anant Raj
15
Kannoria v. Union of India &Anr. , Maria Ramesh v. Union of India
16 17
&Ors. , Ritwick Dutta v. Union of India &Ors. . Para. 33 to 38 of Ritu
Singhal (supra) reads as under:
“33. On a conspectus of constitutional provisions, the regulatory
framework, and the entire body of judicial opinion surveyed above, this
Court distils the following governing legal principles for the issuance,
continuance, and judicial review of Look Out Circulars”

“34. First , the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Any restriction on this right must be founded on law, must
follow a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable, and must not violate
any other fundamental right. Executive instructions cannot be a substitute

4
2026:DHC:3806.
5
2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699.
6
2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229.
7
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195.
8
2025 SCC OnLine Del 9282.
9
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153.
10
2023: DHC:6886.
11
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587.
12
2024 SCC OnLine Del 837.
13
2025: DHC:8787.
14
2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643.
15
W.P.(C) 3313/023 decided on 09.01.2026.
16
W.P.(C) 15701/2022 decided on 27.01.2026.
17
W.P.(C) 12862/023 decided on 02.02.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50

for legislative mandate for the possible restriction of fundamental rights.
Second, an LOC is a coercive executive measure of last resort. It is not a
routine tool for law enforcement or debt recovery. Recourse to an LOC
may be taken only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the IPC
or other penal laws, where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or
not appearing before the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive
measures, and there is a real and proximate likelihood of absconding.

35. Third, public sector banks, through their Chairman, Managing
Directors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess legal authority to
seek the opening of an LOC. Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM
(equivalent to Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 OM), which conferred such
power upon bank officials, stands quashed by decisions of both this
Court and the Bombay High Court.
(Emphasis Supplied)

36.Fourth, mere inability to repay a debt, without there being a criminal
case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21. The issuance of an LOC cannot be resorted
to in every case of bank loan default or credit facility availed for
business purposes. Where the person against whom the LOC is opened
has not been arrayed as an accused in any offence for misappropriation
or siphoning, the LOC cannot be sustained. Fifth, the power under
Clause 6(L) of the 2021 OM to issue an LOC in cases detrimental to the
“economic interests of India” is to be narrowly construed and must be
exercised only in rare and compelling circumstances where the proposed
departure poses a clear and grave threat to the national or systemic
economic interests of India, not in cases of routine commercial default
or individual business failure. The quantum of the alleged default and
the nature of the loss must be assessed to determine whether it genuinely
imperils the national economic interest.
(Emphasis Supplied)

37. Sixth , the authority charged with opening an LOC must apply its mind
independently and cannot act as a mere instrument of the originating
agency. There must be a speaking order, based on specific and credible
inputs, justifying the necessity of the restraint. A mechanical or pro forma
compliance with the originating authority’s request cannot satisfy this
requirement. Seventh , an LOC cannot be issued against a person merely
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50

on account of his status as a director, guarantor, shareholder, or family
member of a defaulting borrower, in the absence of specific material
demonstrating his direct and personal role in the alleged wrongdoing.
Guilt is personal and not vicarious in civil or criminal liability.

38. Eighth, the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite. It must be
periodically reviewed and must be withdrawn when its purpose has been
served. Where the subject has cooperated with the investigation, has not
evaded process, and where no further interrogation or presence is
required, the continued operation of an LOC amounts to an unreasonable
and unjustified restriction on personal liberty. Ninth , while the High
Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is duty-bound to subject LOCs to
strict judicial scrutiny, the Writ Court is not the exclusive forum for
challenge. A person against whom an LOC has been issued may, in the
first instance, approach the originating authority for withdrawal, or
approach the trial Court for its rescission or modification. However,
where these remedies are inadequate or in effectual, the writ jurisdiction
is clearly available. Tenth, the burden of justifying the necessity,
proportionality, and legality of an LOC lies squarely upon the originating
agency. In the absence of such justification, the LOC cannot be sustained.
Courts must not accept bald assertions of security concerns or economic
interest without requiring the originating agency to place credible
material before the Court.
8. It is thus seen that the purpose of issuance of the LOC, as of now,
seems to have been sufficiently served. As the Supreme Court observed in
18
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , " personal liberty makes for the worth
of the human person. Travel makes liberty worthwhile. " There is no material
against the petitioner to indicate any overt act of non-cooperation, therefore,
there is no impediment in setting aside the LOC subject to similar conditions
as have been imposed in the case of Rekha Dixit, Mr. Pankaj Gaur and
Sunny Gaur.
9. For the abovementioned reasoning and justification, the LOC issued

18
(1978) 1 SCC 248
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50

at the instance deserves to be set aside under the following terms and
conditions:
(i) The Petitioner shall co-operate with the ongoing and/or future
investigations, if any, instituted at the behest of the concerned investigation
agency.
(ii) The Petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad without any prior
permission from this Court. The Petitioner shall, however, intimate the
Investigation Officer, with its full itinerary either personally or through
counsel, at least 7 days prior to his departure.
(iii) If, in case of emergency, where intimation cannot be given as
aforesaid, the petitioner shall give the requisite intimation atleast 24 hours
prior to the travel.
(iv) If the chargesheet is filed, the Petitioner shall approach the concerned
Court and thereafter, shall take the permission for travelling abroad.
(v) The SFIO shall be at liberty to seek issuance of a fresh LOC in
accordance with law, if any supervening circumstances or new material
warrants such action.
10. With these directions, and conditions, the LOC stands set aside.
11. Let the necessary communication be made by the SFIO, to
Immigration Bureau.
12. Accordingly, petition along with pending applications, stands
disposed of.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 8, 2026/P

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50