Look Out Circular must be quashed if the subject cooperates with investigation and no flight risk is demonstrated.

The Petitioner, a British national and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), challenged a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

In 2020, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs assigned the SFIO to investigate the affairs of Binani Cement Limited regarding alleged siphoning of funds and diversion of Rs. 382.81 Crore.

The Petitioner was intercepted at Kolkata airport by immigration authorities while traveling to Dubai.

Record shows the petitioner joined the investigation on multiple dates in June 2022 for several hours and remained in communication with the Investigating Officer.

The SFIO’s status report indicated that while investigation was at an advanced stage, no aspersions were cast regarding the Petitioner’s non-cooperation.

1. Whether the continued operation of the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the Petitioner is legally justified when the Petitioner has consistently cooperated with the investigation.

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

It followed the principles laid down in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* regarding personal liberty and *Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director* regarding the limited scope of LOCs.

The Court further applied the recent precedent in *Vineet Gupta v. Union of India*, which established that an LOC is a coercive measure to be used sparingly, must not be indefinite, and should be quashed if the subject is cooperating and poses no flight risk.

The Court observed that the primary purpose of an LOC is to ensure a person joins investigation and does not frustrate the legal process.

In the present case, the Court found no tangible material or apprehension suggested by the SFIO that the Petitioner would evade future proceedings.

Since the Petitioner had already joined the investigation on multiple occasions—specifically recording sessions of 6, 6, and 3 hours—and the SFIO status report failed to cast doubt on his bona fides, the Court determined that the restraint was no longer proportionate.

Applying the *Vineet Gupta* test, the Court reasoned that continuing the LOC would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction on the Petitioner's right to travel, as the "originating agency" failed to demonstrate a continuing necessity for such a coercive measure.

It held that where a subject demonstrates cooperation, the LOC must be set aside to balance state interests with individual liberty.

The petition was allowed subject to several conditions: (i) the Petitioner must file an affidavit undertaking future cooperation;

(ii) provide documents as requested;

(iii) furnish a 15-day prior itinerary before traveling;

(iv) update his address every three months;

and (v) provide an operational email for service of summons.

The SFIO was granted liberty to issue a fresh LOC should the Petitioner evade investigation.