IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that interception and detention at the airport, based on a lookout circular (LOC) by CBI, did not constitute illegal detention, and the petitioner was not entitled to compensation for the same.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. Kogje, J.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Learned advocate Mr.R.C.Kodekar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned standing counsel Mr. Kshitij Amin waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for releasing the petitioner, who according to the petitioner is in custody. The petitioner also prays for relief to take an appropriate action and grant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for illegal detention to be recovered from the responsible officer. The case has arisen on account of intercepting of the petitioner at the Airport who was to travel abroad, but was not permitted to travel on account of a lookout circular(LOC) by CBI and later on released, but by the time the flight had already departed.

3. The very day the matter was moved urgently before the Court and therefore, on 10.10.2023 when the matter was taken up, a statement was made by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been released and therefore, the prayer clause-A would not survive. However, the petitioner wanted to pursue the petition insofar as the prayer clause-B claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is concerned.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was an accused in offense being investigated by the CBI, Gandhinagar, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Court on several conditions and thereafter, as the petitioner was desirous to travel out of India, he had sought such permission from the Court concerned and therefore, under the order of the Court, the petitioner was travelled out of India and therefore, he reached the Airport to board the flight which was scheduled on 10.10.2023 in the early morning.

4.1 It is submitted that despite there being order of the Court and the petitioner having shown the aforesaid order to the authorities, still the petitioner was not permitted to board the flight and was in fact kept in the Airport Police Station.

4.2 Learned advocate submitted that when the order was passed permitting the petitioner to travel out of India, CBI was represented by the counsel and therefore, it was not required for the petitioner to serve the copy of the order upon the CBI or any authority before travelling. It is submitted that though the petitioner had intimated CBI office, when he was intercepted on the basis of lookout circular, it was necessary that the CBI officer should have arrived immediately and pointed out to the immigration authority about the order passed by the Court, but the concerned CBI officer instead of coming immediately came to the Airport Police Station by 09:00-09:30, by that time, the flight had left and the petitioner was unable to board such flight and therefore, causing difficulties for the petitioner for which he is claiming compensation.

4.3 In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon an unreported judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, for claiming the compensation for illegally detaining the petitioner.

4.4 Learned advocate has therefore, argued that the CBI was well aware of the order of the Court permitting travelling, still did not give clearance to the petitioner and hence, immigration authority intercepted the petitioner. Even airport authority was made aware of the order but still did not permit the petitioner to board the flight. The CBI officer once informed was expected to act quickly so that the petitioner could board the flight, but the CBI officer was lethargic. Hence, claim is justified.

5. As against this, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in reply, wherein it is indicated that the order passed by the Court was not served upon the CBI and it was served only on 10th of October 2023 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was sche