Full Judgment Text
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4124/2023 and CM APPL. 32184/2023
Date of Decision : 08.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
SAMEER GAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Manan Popli, Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr.
Atul Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Sharma,
Ms. Karuna Sharma, Ms. Apurva
Gaur, Mr. Pramendra Singh, Ms.
Priya Tripathi and Mr. Shaurya Sarin,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, SPC With Ms.
Rebina Rai, Ms. Punita Jha and Mr.
Shivam Tiwari, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, Mr. Sameer 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
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50
affairs of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (“ JAL ”) and its subsidiary Jaypee
Infratech Limited (“JIL”). The petitioner had served as a Director, Whole-
time Director and Joint Managing Director of the JIL between 2007 and
2016. By letter dated 23.08.2016, the petitioner relinquished his charge as
Whole-time Director and Joint Managing Director of JIL. His resignation
was duly accepted by the Board of Directors on 31.08.2016, and, he,
thereafter, continued to hold office as Non-Executive Director of JIL for a
certain period. The petitioner subsequently began working in M/s Kram
Infracon Private Limited as Director from 01.09.2016 to 30.04.2018 and
thereafter served as its Executive President and is currently employed as an
Advisor in the same company.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has consistently cooperated with
the investigation. He appeared before the SFIO on 22.02.2021 when his
statement was recorded. He submitted additional information on 04.03.2021.
He responded to subsequent questionnaires. There is no allegation that the
petitioner has ever evaded summons or failed to appear when required.
3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that with respect to the same
investigation being carried out by the SFIO, LOCs were opened against
three of his 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. The
petitioner is the real brother of Rekha Dixit and Sunny Gaur, and first cousin
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
of Pankaj Gaur.
4. It is submitted that even during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the petitioner was permitted by this Court to travel to Spain in May-
June 2023, and to Zurich and London in August 2025 vide orders dated
10.05.2023 and 22.07.2025, which permissions were granted on the
petitioner furnishing an undertaking of cooperation and security deposits.
5. The submissions of the petitioner 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 two previous occasions and has
returned to India on both occasions without any violation of the conditions
imposed.
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
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50
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
regulatoryframework, and the entire body of judicial opinion surveyed
above,this Court distils the following governing legal principles for
theissuance, continuance, and judicial review of Look Out Circulars”
“34. First ,the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of thefundamental
right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of theConstitution. Any
restriction on this right must be founded on law,must follow a procedure
thatis just, fair, and reasonable, and must notviolate any other
fundamental right. Executive instructions cannot be asubstitute for
legislative mandate for the possible restriction of fundamental rights.
Second, an LOC is a coercive executive measureof last resort. It is not a
routine tool for law enforcement or debtrecovery. Recourse to an LOC
may be taken only in cases involving acognizable offence under the IPC or
other penal laws, where theaccused is deliberately evading arrest or not
appearing before the trialCourt despite NBWs and other coercive
measures, and there is a realand proximate likelihood of absconding.
35. Third, public sector banks, through their Chairman,
ManagingDirectors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess legal
authorityto 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
suchpower upon bank officials, stands quashed by decisions of both
thisCourt and the Bombay High Court.
[Emphasis Supplied]
36.Fourth, mere inability to repay a debt, without there being acriminal
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
case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of thefundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21. The issuance of anLOC cannot be resorted
to in every case of bank loan default or creditfacility availed for business
purposes. Where the person against whomthe LOC is opened has not
been arrayed as an accused in any offencefor misappropriation or
siphoning, the LOC cannot be sustained. Fifth,the power under Clause
6(L) of the 2021 OM to issue an LOC in casesdetrimental to the
“economic interests of India” is to be narrowlyconstrued and must be
exercised only in rare and compellingcircumstances where the proposed
departure poses a clear and gravethreat to the national or systemic
economic interests of India, not incases of routine commercial default or
individual business failure. Thequantum of the alleged default and the
nature of the loss must beassessed to determine whether it genuinely
imperils the nationaleconomic interest.
[Emphasis Supplied]
37. Sixth , the authority charged with opening an LOC must applyits mind
independently and cannot act as a mere instrument of theoriginating
agency. There must be a speaking order, based on specificand credible
inputs, justifying the necessity of the restraint. Amechanical or pro forma
compliance with the originating authority’srequest cannot satisfy this
requirement. Seventh , an LOC cannot beissued against a person merely
on account of his status as a director,guarantor, shareholder, or family
member of a defaulting borrower, inthe absence of specific material
demonstrating his direct and personalrole 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
beperiodically reviewed and must be withdrawn when its purpose hasbeen
served. Where the subject has cooperated with the investigation,has not
evaded process, and where no further interrogation or presenceis
required, the continued operation of an LOC amounts to anunreasonable
and unjustified restriction on personal liberty. Ninth ,while the High
Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is duty-bound tosubject LOCs to
strict judicial scrutiny, the Writ Court is not theexclusive forum for
challenge. A person against whom an LOC hasbeen issued may, in the first
instance, approach the originatingauthority for withdrawal, or approach
the trial Court for its rescissionor modification. However, where these
remedies are inadequate orineffectual, the writ jurisdiction is clearly
available. Tenth, the burdenof justifying the necessity, proportionality, and
legality of an LOC liessquarely upon the originating agency. In the
absence of suchjustification, the LOC cannot be sustained. Courts must
not acceptbald assertions of security concerns or economic interest
without requiring the originating agency to place credible material before
theCourt.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:18:50
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 or 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
at the instance SFIO 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
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
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. 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