The fundamental right to travel overseas is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the issuance of lookout circulars should be fair and reasonable, especially in cases where individuals are not involved in heinous crimes and are not likely to abscond.

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the first respondent to withdraw the Lookout circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.06 of 2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint was given by one Senthil against the petitioner and six others and the same was taken on file by the second respondent police and a First Information Report was registered in Crime No.06 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 417, 493, 294(b), 506(ii), 147 and 148 of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was also arrested in the said Crime Number and the petitioner filed a bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai by an order dated 11.11.2016 made in C.M.P.No.7911 of 2016, granted bail to the petitioner with a condition that the petitioner should report before the second respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of 30 days. The petitioner has also complied with the condition.

3. The investigation was carried on and ultimately a final report came to be filed on 07.08.2017 and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.287 of 2017 for an alleged offences under Sections 417, 493, 506(ii) read with 147, 148 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the charges have been framed and the case is at the stage of trial.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in Singapore and that he has always co-operated with the investigation and has also attended all Court hearings. However, on 03.08.2017 when he went to Chennai Airport on his way to Singapore, he was restrained by the Immigration officer on the ground that there is a lookout circular against the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the lookout circular has been issued by the first respondent and as a result of the same, the petitioner is not in a position to continue his job at Singapore.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working at Singapore from the year 2007 onwards and his livelihood is totally dependant upon his job at Singapore. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has subjected himself to investigation and has been arrested and released on bail and a final report has already been filed in the case and the charges have also been framed. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has specifically undertaken in the affidavit that he will appear for the enquiry as and when his presence is required in future.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is admittedly living in Singapore and he has his job in Singapore and therefore, there are chances that the petitioner may escape from the clutches of the respondents police and may delay the trial, that is now pending in C.C.No.287 of 2017. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1 to P.W.3 has already been summoned and the trial will be completed within a short time. The learned counsel justified the issuance of the lookout circular against the petitioner by the first respondent.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side and also the materials placed on records.

8. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is working in Singapore and he is living in Singapore from the year 2007 onwards. After the registration of the First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail with conditions and the petitioner has also complied with the conditions. Subsequently, after investigation the charges have also been framed and there is no complaint that the petitioner did not co-operate during investigation. The first respondent has issued the lookout circular, when the case was at the stage of F.I.R. and the same is continuing till today. This Court had an occasion to deal with the issue as to when lookout n