Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Jayant Jaisoorya
For the Respondents: M Vijay Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for Home

The court ruled that an LOC against a foreign national accused of serious financial crimes is justifiable to prevent flight risk, even if bail has been granted, as the risk of the accused not returning to face trial outweighs the individual's right to foreign travel.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel - Look Out Circular (LOC) - Petitioner alleged that issuance of LOC without probable cause is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights; requested revocation of LOC - Court held that LOC is a measure to prevent suspects from fleeing jurisdiction; while right to travel is a facet of personal liberty, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the interest of the State in ensuring the presence of an accused in an ongoing investigation involving serious financial fraud.

(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The court distinguished the present case from precedents where LOCs were ordered to be withdrawn, noting that the petitioner is a foreign national with family ties abroad.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.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13669

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADRenuka Yara, JBhagyalakshmi Sankar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO.14629 of 2025

The court ruled that an LOC against a foreign national accused of serious financial crimes is justifiable to prevent flight risk, even if bail has been granted, as the risk of the accused not returning to face trial outweighs the individual's right to foreign travel.

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