Judicial orders granting permission for foreign travel and suspending a Look Out Circular (LOC) for a specific duration must be strictly enforced by executive and immigration authorities, superseding any administrative instructions to the contrary while such judicial suspension remains operative.

ORDER:

The petitioner is accused No.5 in FIR No.305 of 2024 of P.S. Jubilee Hills, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 365, 341, and 120-B read with 34 of the IPC, based on a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant in relation to partnership disputes concerning a company named M/s. Kria Health Care. A Look Out Circular (LOC) came to be issued by the 3rd respondent-SHO, P.S. Jubilee Hills, whereupon the respondents No. 1 and 2-Immigration authorities detained the petitioner when he returned to India from USA, and landed at the New Delhi Airport.

1.1. It is the specific case of the petitioner that this Court in W.P. No. 17203 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024, directed that the Look Out Circular (LOC) opened against him should remain suspended during any period for which the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court) granted him permission to travel abroad. The petitioner contends that despite the judicial directions, the respondent No.2 continues to enforce the LOC at airports, resulting in repeated detention, delay, and interference with his foreign travel. He therefore seeks to declare the conduct of respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Order dated 04.07.2024 passed in the W.P. No. 17203 of 2024, and contrary to the permission granted by the trial Court in Crl.MP.No. 1248 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025, and further seeks closure of the LOC against the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Rajesh Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of respondents No.2 and 3 in continuing to enforce the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitionerdespite specific judicial orders permitting him to travel abroad, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.17203 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated as accused No.5 in Crime No.305/2024 arising out of a partnership dispute concerning M/s. Kria Health Care and that the complaint itself was lodged on 08.04.2024 nearly six years after the alleged incident dated 22.11.2018, without attributing any overt act of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, or criminal intimidation against the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that this Court, in Criminal Petition No.5657 of 2024 dated 30.05.2024, had prima facie observed that the offence under Section 386 IPC was not attracted and that the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, while releasing the petitioner on 26.06.2024 upon execution of a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, had also taken note of the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Learned counsel argued that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in W.P. No.17203 of 2024, the petitioner obtained permission from the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No.1248 of 2025 dated 03.09.2025 to travel abroad between 01.09.2025 and 01.04.2026, and despite such judicial permission, the immigration authorities repeatedly detained the petitioner at airports and insisted upon additional confirmation from the 3rdrespondent before permitting travel. He submitted that on earlier occasions in May 2025, while travelling to and returning from Dubai, the petitioner was unlawfully detained until e-mail confirmations were sent by the 3rdrespondent, even though the petitioner’s presence was not requ