$~3 to 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 5438/2021 ASHISH GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manohar Malik with Ms. Astha Gumber, Advocates.

versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Asmita Kumar, Advocate for R4/PNB.

+ W.P.(C) 4973/2022 ASHISH GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manohar Malik with Ms. Astha Gumber, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr.

Aryan Dhaka, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 2565/2025 ASHISH GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manohar Malik with Ms. Astha Gumber, Advocates.

versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

These petitions relate to the issuance of Look Out Circulars (‘LOCs’)

against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that as per the liberty granted by the Court, he approached the Special Court Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) and vide order dated 31.08.2024, the LOCs which were issued at the instance of the CBI were set aside.

2. He therefore confines his prayer only to the extent of LOCs issued at the instance of the banks namely – State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank and Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’)

3. It remains undisputed that the petitioner vide order dated 03.02.2025 was permitted to travel abroad between 14.02.2025 to 17.02.2025. It is during his aforesaid travel to Dubai, that he was stopped at the airport and, thereafter, he became aware of the LOC having been issued at the instance of ED. He, therefore, had to file a separate W.P.(C) 2565/2025. Furthermore, W.P.(C) 5438/2021 and WP(C) 4973/2022 relate to the LOCs issued at the instance of the banks and the CBI.

4. Recently, this Court in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & ors, 2026 :DHC:1616, while taking a note of various decisions inter alia, in Maneka Gandhi

v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 and Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online Bom 1195, has copiously reiterated that LOC is a coercive executive measure that directly impinges upon the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also emphasised that continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must withstand strict judicial scrutiny on the touchstone of various factors like necessity, proportionality, fairness, and due process. Thus, it was held that where the subject has cooperated with investigation and there is no demonstrable requirement for restraint, continuation of the LOC would be arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The relevant extract of the aforenoted decision reads as under: -

“10.On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:

(i)LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda;

(ii)An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood of absconding;

(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where, the