THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
NELSON SAILO, J.
Bhanu Tatak, D/o Shri Tapang Tatak - Petitioner
Versus
Delhi Police Through the Commissioner of Police & Ors. - Respondent
WP(Crl) No. 3 of 2025
Decided On : 18-12-2025
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :
NELSON SAILO, J.
Heard Mr. Collin Gonselves, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S.Tayeng, learned counsel for the petitioner through RVC. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. L. Kardu, learned Special P.P. for the respondent No.4.
[2.] The case of the petitioner is that she is a Law student and serving as a Legal Advisor of the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum. She received an invitation for three months academic promotion at Dublin City University scheduled to start on 08.09.2025 up to 28.11.2025. However, on 07.09.2025 at about 03:00 am while she was on her way to board her flight at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi she was stopped by Immigration Authorities on the ground that there was a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her. Despite requests made by her, she was not allowed to board her flight. According to the petitioner, she has never been furnished with a copy of the LOC but however, came to know subsequently that the LOC has been circulated in view of the two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against her amongst other persons on 28.05.2025 and 11.06.2025. The first FIR being Boleng PS Case No.11/2025 and the second FIR being Boleng PS Case No.18/2025. The petitioner applied for Anticipatory Bail in view of the FIRs and vide order dated 17.07.2025 the ad-interim Anticipatory Bail granted to her was made absolute.
[3.] The petitioner has now filed instant writ petition praying for quashing the LOC issued against her by the respondent No.3 or any other authority as being violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the Immigration Authorities to permit her to travel abroad to attend the program at Dublin City University without hindrance and restrain the authorities not to issue any further LOC against her.
[4.] Dr. Collin Gonselves, learned Senior Counsel submits that there no materials to implicate the petitioner in any matter on the alleged incident mentioned in the FIR which was said to have happened on 25.05.2025. In fact, the petitioner along with the Minister concerned who had lodged the FIR were prevented from going outside the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for their own safety and therefore, there was no question on the petitioner instigating the crowd outside who had turned violent. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has not even been named in the first FIR. He submits that the petitioner is still interested to go for the three months academic program at Dublin City University and therefore the LOC issued against her should be set aside and she be allowed to travel abroad. He submits that the petitioner has been cooperating with the Investigating Agency throughout and there is no reason as to why she would not do the same even if the LOC is withdrawn or set aside by this Court. He submits that at any rate, LOC can be issued only under certain circumstances including the accused deliberately evading arrest, refusing to co-operate with the Investigating Authorities or the accused is likely to leave the country to evade trial/arrest. He submits that no such conditions are available in the present case and therefore, the issuance of LOC is not justifiable. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was called by the police on 30.08.2025 and she immediately went to the Crime Branch, Itanagar and gave her statement verbally which was recorded by the SIT Inspector for two hours. Thereafter, a letter was delivered to the petitioner’s house on 03.09.2025 asking her to report back to the SIT Branch at Itanagar. The petitioner was however unable to report since she had already booked her flight ticket from Dibrugarh to New Delhi on 04.09.2025 and moreover as it would take approximately eight hours from her residence to reach Itanagar and it was dangerous for her to travel at night. Therefore, it was not possible for her to reach Itan
AI
The issuance of a Look Out Circular requires substantial justification; lack of cooperation or involvement justifies review and potential withdrawal.
The main legal point established is the requirement for procedural safeguards in the issuance of Look Out Circulars, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and a fair, just, and reaso....
The issuance and continuation of a Look-Out Circular must be justified by compelling reasons, specifically regarding flight risk or evading justice; lack of fresh evidence can render it arbitrary.
The issuance of Look Out Circular against a person not accused in a closed case is improper and violates the fundamental right to travel.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to travel abroad, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be curtailed unless a very high threshold is m....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.