The continued operation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) lacks justification based solely on the pendency of a criminal investigation, as it infringes upon the fundamental right to travel under Article 21, provided the accused cooperates with proceedings.

PRAYER

This criminal original petition is preferred under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to direct the respondents to lift the look out circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.234 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and permit the petitioner to travel abroad for employment purposes, subject to reasonable conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and thus render justice.

ORDER

1. The petitioner/accused in Crime No.234 of 2024 for the offences under sections 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2), 318(4) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, filed the present petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to lift the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, later added as an accused. The cases in Crime Nos.233 and 234 of 2024 registered on the complaint of the Additional Director / Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Kilpauk, Chennai. The case against the petitioner is that during the PG Medical counselling for the academic year 2024-25, some students have submitted documents for the NRI quota and on verification of the same with the respective Embassies, they were found to be forged and hence, a complaint has been given and a case came to be registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the medical practitioner who has completed his MBBS course in the year 2009 and is running a hospital ‘Kathir Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd.’ in Kelambakkam main road, Kandigai, Melakottaiyur, Chennai. He also operates an EdTech firm in Berlin, Germany and having an office at Neelankarai, Chennai under the name ‘Edicine LLP & Methodder LLP’ by providing learning management systems and educational content to the medical institutions worldwide. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner firm also offers faculty development programs and human resource services for medical colleges abroad and his major clients are in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Dubai and Malaysia and because of his nature of business, he requires frequent travel abroad for client meetings, faculty interaction and also for programme of management system installation and training.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on coming to know about the registration of the case, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail petitions before this court in Crl.O.P.Nos.11649 and 11729 of 2025 and anticipatory bail was granted on 23.04.2025. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondents police and to cooperate with the enquiry. The petitioner on 29.04.2025 went to Srilanka and the immigration authorities had restrained and detained him informing that a Look Out Circular [LOC] has been issued against him.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner has furnished necessary sureties and has complied with the bail conditions. He also regularly appears before the respondents and is cooperating with the investigation. It is his further submission that now, a substantial portion of investigation completed and continuation of the LOC is not required. Further, the petitioner’s business demands regular travel to foreign countries, otherwise his business prospects would be affected and it will lead to financial constraints and liability. Further, the learned counsel submitt