Issuance of a Look-Out Circular violates fundamental rights if restrictions exceed bail conditions already safeguarding respondent interests.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 7th accused in S.C No.1645/2023 on the file of the Court of Additional Session - II, Ernakulam, (‘Trial Court’, in short) which has originated from O.R No.2/2023 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscalleneous Case that he secured an admission for higher studies in Germany. Consequently, he made an application for the return of his passport before the Trial Court. By Annexure B order, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit that he would not dispute his identity, and by Annexure C order the petitioner's passport has been returned to him for a period of two years to pursue his higher studies. However, the petitioner has learnt that, during the course of the investigation, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had issued a Look-Out Circular (LOC) and the same has not been withdrawn. The LOC , if not withdrawn, is likely to cause severe prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, while he is travelling abroad because he may be held up in the Airport, which will cause severe embarrassment and mental agony to him. Therefore, the LOC may be quashed in light of Annexure C order passed by the Trial Court.

3. The respondents nos. 1 and 2 have filed a statement, inter alia, stating that the LOC has not been withdrawn for the purpose of getting information from the Bureau of Immigration regarding the petitioner’s arrival and the departure from India. It is in the said circumstances that the Annexure R1 letter is issued. The letter is purely procedural in nature and does not call for any further action to restrain or take any coercive measure against the petitioner. Hence, the apprehension raised by the petitioner is unfounded.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2 and the learned DSGI. 5. Admittedly, by Annexure C order, the jurisdictional court has permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of two years. The said order was passed after the petitioner had got himself enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petitioner is bound by the condition in the bail order and Annexure C order. Hence, I do not find any rhyme, reason or logic in Annexure R1 letter being issued by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to the 3rd respondent. The letter in all probability is likely to cause inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner, particularly before the immigration authorities, who in all likelihood may inquire regarding the case. The said letter is an infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad, subject to conditions in the bail order and Annexure C order. The conditions in the above orders are sufficient to safeguard and protect the interest of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner would participate in the trial.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow Crl.M.C, by quashing Annexure R1 letter. The 3rd respondent is directed to forthwith withdraw the LOC. Nevertheless, the petitioner shall strictly adhere to the conditions in bail order and Annexure C order, failing which the respondents nos. 1 and 2 would be at liberty to take action in accordance with the law.

Sd/-