The issuance of a Look-Out Circular must be justified; arbitrary LOCs infringe personal liberty under Article 21.

ORDER :

K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in issuing Look-out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.77 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( Section 498-A IPC old) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner enabling him to travel from Visakhapatnam to Abu Dhabi on 08.02.2026.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he is working as an Electrical Technician in xxxx Dubai. He married one xxxx on 14.02.2021. After they blessed with a child, his wife filed a case in DVC No.21 of 2024 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-VII Additional Senior Judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner filed FCOP No.699 of 2024 seeking divorce and his wife filed FCOP No.1553 of 2025 for maintenance before the learned Additional Judge, Family Court-II, Visakhapatnam. On 15.04.2025, petitioner’s wife filed a case in Crime No.77 of 2025 on the file of the Mahila Urban Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( Section 498-A IPC old) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . On receiving the notice in the said crime, he appeared before the Mahila Police Station on 26.04.2025 and he was enlarged on bail and returned to Dubai on 28.04.2025. Police filed charge sheet in the above crime, which was numbered as CC No.2753 of 2025 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner states that when the case in FCOP No.1553 of 2025 was posted to 17.01.2026, he applied leave and arrived to Visakhapatnam Airport from Abu Dhabi on 14.01.2026. Then the Airport police apprehended him on the ground that Look-out Circular was issued against him and later he was released on furnishing sureties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to pendency of LOC issued against him, the petitioner was unable to leave India and extended his leave for one week. He has to report for duty on 09.02.2026 and the departure date is on 08.02.2026. If the petitioner is retained under the guise of LOC, he would lose his job at Dubai.

4. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another, Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022, wherein it was held thus (paragraphs 11 and 12).

“11. In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC.

12. The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed. However, a balance has to be