Shantanu Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6613/2022, CM APPL. 20104/2022, CM APPL. 9817/2024
and CM APPL. 9859/2024

Date of Decision: 12.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:


SHANTANU PRAKASH .....Petitioner
(Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa Sr Advocate, with Ms. Neeha
Nagpal, Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Ms. Mehma Kaur, Ms. Shristy Singh
Advocates.)

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

(Through: Ms. Arti Bansal CGSC with Ms.Shruti Goel Advocate.
Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn, Advocates for R-4.)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. As per the order dated 11.11.2024, the petitioner‟s relief is confined
only to the quashment of the Look Out Circulars („ LOCs ‟) which have been
issued at the instance of the banks. It is pointed out that on the basis of the
complaints sent by the banks, two FIRs have been registered against the
petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation („ CBI ‟). The investigation
is stated to be pending before the CBI.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the LOCs
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:59:11

issued at the instance of the bank are set aside, the LOC opened by the CBI
will still remain in operation. He then contends that the petitioner as of now
is required to take permission from the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e.,
Court of Special Judge („CBI‟) and, thereafter from this Court, before
travelling abroad. The aforesaid position remains undisputed.
3. In order to avoid the multiplicity of the said exercise, he undertakes
that he will not travel abroad unless he seeks the permission from the Court
of Special Judge („CBI‟). The said submission seems to be reasonable.
1

4. This Court in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. ,
while taking a note of various decisions inter alia, in Maneka Gandhi v.
2 3
Union of India , Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and Viraj Chetan
4
Shah v. Union of India , 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 continuation 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:


1
2026 :DHC:1616
2
(1978) 1 SCC 248
3
2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699
4
2024 SCC Online Bom 1195
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:59:11

(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, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:59:11

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 light of the aforenoted guiding principles, the impugned LOCs
issued at the instance of the State Bank of India and Union Bank of India are
totally unsustainable in the eyes of the law, and cannot withstand judicial
scrutiny. The said LOCs are, accordingly, set aside.

6. The petitioner, however, shall take permission from the Court of
Special Judge (CBI), where the FIR is pending.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 12, 2026
Nc/ksr

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:59:11