Look Out Circular Cannot Be Sustained Where Accused Is On Bail With Travel Restrictions Imposed By Trial Court

The Petitioner, identified as accused no. 24 in connection with F. No. ECIR/DLZO-I/44/2021, challenged the issuance and continued operation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued at the instance of Respondent No. 4

On February 11, 2025, the Principal District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge CBI, Rouse Avenue District Court, granted the Petitioner regular bail subject to conditions, including a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a specific restriction not to leave the country without court permission

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the LOC on the grounds that its purpose was satisfied by the bail conditions.

Whether the continued operation of a Look Out Circular is legally sustainable after the subject has been granted regular bail with conditions restricting international travel

Whether the LOC violated the Petitioner’s fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

The Court primarily relied on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the fundamental right to travel as an integral part of personal liberty

It applied the principles established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, which state that an LOC is a coercive measure that must be exercised sparingly and must withstand scrutiny regarding necessity and proportionality

Furthermore, it applied the guiding principles from Vineet Gupta v. Union of India, asserting that if a subject cooperates with investigation and there is no demonstrable requirement for restraint, the LOC becomes arbitrary

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner had already been admitted to regular bail by the Special Judge, the judicial oversight of his movements was established

The bail order specifically prohibited the Petitioner from leaving the country without prior permission of the Trial Court

Consequently, the Court found that the underlying "purpose" of the LOC—to ensure the Petitioner's presence and prevent him from absconding—stood satisfied by the existing judicial conditions

Referring to the Vineet Gupta precedent, the Court noted that an LOC cannot be indefinite and must be justified by the "originating agency"

Finding no "cogent justification" from the respondents for its continued operation in light of the bail order, the Court determined the restriction was no longer proportionate or necessary

The Court set aside and quashed the LOC issued against the Petitioner

While the Petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the Trial Court for any further modifications of bail conditions, the High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to remove the executive restraint

The respondents were permitted to take any other legal actions as per law