A Look Out Circular cannot continue absent a pressing, proximate need justifying restraint.

The petitioner sought quashing of the Look Out Circular (“LOC”) issued against him at the instance of the concerned investigating agency in connection with FIR/RC No. RC0502023A0001/2023.

The FIR was registered by the CBI for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.

The allegations concerned a criminal conspiracy by M/s Noesis Industries Ltd., formerly M/s MVL Industries Ltd., its directors, unknown public servants and private persons to defraud consortium banks through false representations, obtain credit facilities, and misappropriate or siphon off loan funds.

The petitioner was alleged not to have responded to notices, resulting in the issuance of the LOC.

Although the FIR had been registered in 2023, no charge-sheet had been filed and the investigation remained pending.

The petitioner undertook not to leave India without prior intimation to the investigating agency and permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Whether the LOC issued against the petitioner could be sustained when the investigation remained pending, no charge-sheet had been filed, and the CBI had not demonstrated a pressing, urgent or proximate necessity for its continuance.

Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to intimate the investigating agency and obtain permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate adequately protected the interests of the investigation.

The Court applied the principle that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction must be authorised by law and satisfy the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality.

Relying on Ritu Singhal v. Bureau of Immigration & Ors., 2026:DHC:3806, the Court held that an LOC is a coercive executive measure of last resort, not a routine law-enforcement or debt-recovery mechanism; it requires a cognizable offence, deliberate evasion of arrest or court process, and a real and proximate likelihood of absconding.

The originating authority must independently apply its mind and justify the LOC through specific and credible material; the LOC must also be periodically reviewed and withdrawn when its purpose has been served or when continued operation becomes an unreasonable restriction on personal liberty.

The burden of establishing the necessity, legality and proportionality of the LOC lies on the originating agency.

The Court found that the CBI’s counter-affidavit did not identify any pressing, urgent or continuing necessity for maintaining the LOC against the petitioner.

The mere pendency of the FIR and investigation, without a charge-sheet or demonstrated material showing a real and proximate risk of absconding, was insufficient under the governing principles relating to LOCs.

The petitioner’s undertaking that he would not leave the country without prior intimation to the investigating agency and permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate was considered adequate to safeguard the investigation.

Accordingly, the continued LOC was held unjustified and liable to be set aside.

The proceedings were disposed of, subject to the petitioner’s undertaking regarding foreign travel.

The Court granted liberty to the CBI to issue a fresh LOC in the future if the circumstances so warranted.