JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioners at the instance of Respondent No.3/Bank of Baroda.

2. The facts as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3/Bank of Baroda at whose instance the LOC has been opened are that M/s Royal Industries FZ LLC availed of loan from UAE Branch of Respondent No.3. It is stated that the Petitioners are Promoters and Directors of M/s Royal Industries FZ LLC. It is stated that the Petitioners also stood guarantee for the loan availed by the said M/s Royal Industries. It is stated that the borrower did not pay the loan amount and the account of the borrower was classified as an NPA on 30.06.2016.

3. The counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 indicates that a complaint that a cheque had been issued for repayment of loan which was dishonoured and a Complaint No.2862/2017 was lodged at Al Raffa Police Station against the signatory of the cheque. The criminal complaint was transferred to Dubai Police Prosecution and thereafter to Dubai Court. The Criminal Court of Dubai convicted the signatory of the cheque and ordered two years of imprisonment. It is also stated that the Respondent No.3 has instituted a civil suit before the Sarjah Court where the Petitioner is a Defendant No.1. A decree has been passed to the tune of Rs.33,95,86,911.30/- and an Execution Petition has also been filed which is pending before the courts in Dubai.

4. It is also stated that there is a travel ban on the directors, promoters and guarantors of the borrower company. The Petitioners are now in India. The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Lookout Circular prohibiting the Petitioners from travelling outside the country at the instance of the Bank for an offence committed outside the country can be opened or not.

5. Notice was issued in the writ petitions. Pleadings are complete.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that there are no criminal proceedings against the Petitioners in India and that the Petitioners are not required for any investigation in the country. He, therefore, submits that there is no basis for opening a Lookout Circular within the country which has the effect of taking away the right of the Petitioners to travel abroad which has been read as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He states that a travel ban to the UAE cannot result in opening a Lookout Circular against the Petitioners in the country and thereby impeding the right of the Petitioners to travel from India to other countries.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Bureau of Immigration states that the Lookout Circular has been opened at the instance of the Respondent No.3/Bank of Baroda.

8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/Bank of Baroda states that the Petitioners owes a substantial amount of money approximately Rs.33,95,86,911.30/- and, therefore, permitting the Petitioners go outside the country will have a detrimental effect to the economic interests of the country.

9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. Lookout Circulars are issued to ensure attendance of the person, against whom an LOC has been opened before the investigating agency or before any court. It was found that many persons against whom criminal proceedings were initiated, in order to evade arrest and frustrate the investigation, go outside the country. This Court in various judgments has given direction, as guidance for the agencies and courts to deal with Lookout Circulars, in pursuance to the various orders passed by this Court. The Ministry of Home Affairs vide its Office Memorandum bearing No.25016/31/2010-Imm dated 27.10.2010 brought out the consolidated guidelines for opening of LOCs. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum reads as under:

"8. In accordance with the order dated 26.7.2010 of the High Court of Delhi, the matter has been discussed with the concerned age