Regular court appearances and recall of the NBW render a Look Out Circular unnecessary.

The petitioner was an accused in Crime No. 213 of 2022, in which a charge sheet had been filed and taken on file as P.R.C. No. 22 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri.

While the petitioner was in Malaysia, the Superintendent of Police sought a Look Out Circular (LOC), citing concern that he would not appear in the proceedings; the Bureau of Immigration and Foreigners Regional Registration Office issued the LOC, and the Magistrate subsequently issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW).

In an earlier writ petition, the LOC was kept in abeyance for two days to enable the petitioner to return and surrender; he surrendered on 2 December 2025, and the NBW was recalled.

The petitioner later sought recall of the LOC, stating that he was appearing in court.

A certified order dated 24 September 2026 showed the accused, including the petitioner as accepted by the Court, appearing before the Magistrate, and the case had been committed to the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

Whether the LOC should remain in force after the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and the NBW against him was recalled.

Whether quashing the LOC would permit the petitioner to leave India without prior court permission.

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or specific legal test governing LOCs.

It proceeds on the stated purpose of this LOC: securing the petitioner’s presence before the criminal court.

The Court held that, in the circumstances, the petitioner’s appearance and the recall of the NBW removed the need to keep the LOC alive.

It also made clear that quashing the LOC did not entitle the petitioner to leave India without prior permission from the Principal District Judge or another appropriate court.

The LOC had been issued because the authorities feared that the petitioner, who was in Malaysia, would not attend the proceedings.

The Court found that he had returned, surrendered, obtained recall of the NBW, and consistently appeared before the Magistrate; the case had also been committed for trial.

Given that the LOC’s purpose was to secure his presence and that he had appeared before the court, the Court found no continuing necessity for it.

The Court separately addressed the State’s concern that he might leave India, clarifying that the order did not remove the requirement to obtain prior court permission to travel abroad.

It clarified that the petitioner could not leave India without prior permission from the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, or another appropriate court; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.