Successive look out circular suspension permitted upon establishing previous compliance and professional necessity despite ongoing investigation.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant should be granted a temporary suspension of the Look Out Circular to travel abroad for professional purposes despite an ongoing SFIO investigation.

The court held

The court allowed the application and suspended the LOC from June 9 to June 23, 2026.

It also directed

The holding was subject to 12 strict conditions, including: (i) returning to India by June 23; (ii) joining the investigation within 48 hours if summoned while abroad; (iii) furnishing a ₹25 lakh FDR and a ₹25 lakh personal bond; (iv) providing all documents sought by the SFIO prior to travel; and (v) an undertaking not to relinquish interests in properties or seek foreign citizenship.

The matter was listed for further proceedings on August 27, 2026.

01Facts

The applicant, Karandeep Singh, filed an application (CRL.M.A. 15232/2026) seeking a temporary suspension of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him on December 18, 2020.

pp. 1-2

The applicant, who runs a hospital, sought to travel to the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland from June 9 to June 23, 2026, to attend four professional healthcare and AI conferences.

p. 2

The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) opposed the request, contending that the applicant had made four previous requests in 13 months, had allegedly failed to comply with previous undertakings to supply documents, and was required for an ongoing investigation into serious financial irregularities.

pp. 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant should be granted a temporary suspension of the Look Out Circular to travel abroad for professional purposes despite an ongoing SFIO investigation.

p. 6 · ¶ 13

ii.2. Whether the applicant’s past conduct and roots in society mitigate the "flight risk" alleged by the respondent.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The court relied on the principle of balancing the right to travel abroad with the interests of a fair and unhindered investigation.

p. 4

It applied the doctrine that a person with "deep roots in society" and a consistent record of returning to the jurisdiction after previous court-sanctioned travels is significantly less likely to be a "flight risk".

p. 6

It further applied the principle of imposing stringent conditions, including financial securities (FDRs) and personal bonds, to ensure compliance with the court's orders and the availability of the accused for investigation.

pp. 7-8

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Companies Act, 2013 Section 212

04Reasoning

The court observed that the applicant had been permitted to travel abroad on four previous occasions and had returned to India each time without misusing the liberty.

p. 5

While the SFIO argued that investigation was at a crucial stage and documents remained outstanding, the court noted that the applicant’s family is settled in Chandigarh and he has established professional standing.

p. 6

The court found that the documents provided for the conferences were verified and undisputed.

p. 6

To address the SFIO's concerns regarding the investigation, the court determined that the travel could be permitted provided the applicant furnishes specific documents prior to departure and remains available via a 48-hour recall clause if required by the Investigating Officer.

p. 7