Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13669
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Bhagyalakshmi Sankar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.14629 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Criminal Investigation - Inter-State/International flight risk - Foreign national accused - Where an accused holds citizenship of a foreign country and is implicated in a serious financial crime, the apprehension that the accused may flee and not return to face legal proceedings constitutes a valid ground for maintaining an LOC, even if the accused has been granted bail.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Australian citizen residing in India, is an accused in a criminal case involving charges of fraud, forgery, and impersonation regarding the misappropriation of funds from the Administrative Staff College of India. Despite being granted bail in a related case, a Look Out Circular was issued preventing her from travelling to Australia. The petitioner sought the withdrawal of the LOC, arguing that as she had cooperated with the investigation, her fundamental right to travel was being curtailed.
Findings of Court:
The court distinguished the present case from precedents where LOCs were ordered to be withdrawn, noting that the petitioner is a foreign national with family ties abroad. The court held that allowing her to leave could jeopardize the ongoing investigation and the trial, given the potential flight risk.
Issues: Whether the issuance of a Look Out Circular against a foreign national accused of serious financial offences, who has been granted bail, is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: When an accused is a foreign national and there is a high propensity that departure from the country would frustrate the investigation and subsequent trial of a serious criminal offence, the state’s interest in the integrity of the judicial process outweighs the individual’s right to unrestricted travel.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Jayant Jaisoorya
For the Respondents: M Vijay Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for Home
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petitioner's challenge against the look out circular and the state's response based on the nature of the criminal investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. analysis of the applicability of loc withdrawal guidelines and the distinction between indian citizens and foreign nationals regarding flight risk. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. final determination that the interest of justice in ensuring the presence of a foreign accused requires maintaining the loc. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
4thRespondent in issuing the communication to Respondents
Nos.1 to 3 for opening a Look Out Circular against the petitioner
without any probable cause as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and
consequently, direct the respondents to revoke/withdraw the
Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner and …..”
2. Heard Sri T. Jayant Jaisoorya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M
Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Central Government appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for
respondent Nos.4 to 7.
3. The case of the petitioner is that a false report was lodged against her by
one Jagadesh Kumar on 23.11.2024 before P.S., CCS and based on said false
report, the P.S., CCS registered a crime in FIR No.233 of 2024. The petitioner
approached this court under Section 528 of BNSS vide Criminal Petition No.
14556 of 2024 dated 27.11.2024. This court had issued notice to respondent
No.4. The petitioner informed about Crl.P.No.14556 of 2024 to respondent No.4
through a WhatsApp message. The petitioner called upon respondent No.4 and
informed that she is in Hyderabad and in pursuance of said order, she can appear
before him to collect the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. The petitioner
appeared before respondent No.4 on 06.12.2024 with the orders of this court.
Instead of issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the petitioner was
detained for 12 hours at P.S., Central Crime Station and was arrested by
respondent No.4. Aggrieved by such arrest, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34709 of
2024 and the petitioner was released on interim bail vide order dated
09.12.2024. After being released on bail, the petitioner appeared before
respondent No.4 to cooperate with the investigation. At that time, the petitioner
was informed that she cannot travel as a Look Out Circular is issued against her.
The petitioner pleaded that she is an overseas citizen of India bearing card
number A3141253 and has passport bearing No.RA6035542 issued by
Australian Government. The petitioner is residing in India and owns properties
in India. The petitioner's son is also a resident of Australia and therefore, she
intends to travel to Australia to meet her son, and the same is not possible on
account of the Look Out Circular. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.4
issuing a Look Out Circular against her is illegal, as she cooperated with the
investigation by appearing before respondent No.4 to receive the notice under
Section 35(3) of BNSS and also challenged her detention by filing
W.P.No.34709 of 2024. The petitioner pleaded that there is gross abuse of
process of law and violation of fundamental rights in the mechanical manner of
issuance of Look Out Circular against her. The petitioner pleaded that her free
travel is prevented by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and thereby, her fundamental
rights are curtailed. As per judgment in the case between Poladi Abhirath v.
State of Telangana in W.P.No.74 of 2024, whenever a notice under Section
41A of Cr.P.C is issued or whenever bail is obtained by the accused, it is an
obligation on the part of the police to address a letter to Commissioner and the
Commissioner shall in turn address a letter to Immigration Authorities to close
LOC. In violation of said settled principle, respondent No.4 communicated
