IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.10.2013

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

Crl.O.P. No.27741 of 2013

1. E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy

2. E.V.R.Santhosh Reddy

3. Rajeshwari

...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

Vs.

1.State Represented by

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Ambattur Range,

Chennai.

2. State Represented by

The Inspector of Police,

T16 Nasarathpettai Police Station,

Chennai-602 103.

...Respondents/Complainant

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1^st respondent to withdraw the

Look Out Circular (LOC) issued to the Immigration Officer, Chennai

Airport against the petitioners and permit the petitioners to go

abroad.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj

For Respondents

:

Mr.C.Emalias,

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioners, who are A1 to A3 in PRC No.7/2013 pending before

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, seeks direction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to the first respondent to withdraw the Lookout

Circular issued against them. (Shortly, hereinafter L.O.C.).

2. Petitioners are owners of 'EVP Theme Park' in Sembarambakkam.

There are lot of items of interest for the children. One is 'Octopus

ride'. It is being used for jolly ride.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. On 02.10.2012, a mishap has occurred while having ride in the

said Octopus. Chabraboorthy's daughter sustained very serious

injuries. She died. Based on her father's complaint a case in crime

No.1271 of 2012 has been registered. After investigation, final

report has been filed for an offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.

Learned Magistrate took cognizance thereon in PRC. No.7 of 2013 as

against the petitioners. It is pending. They have filed

Crl.O.P.No.22742 of 2013 in this Court to quash the said criminal

proceedings. It is pending.

4. Petitioners are holders of Indian Passports. During the

investigation stage, L.O.C. order has been issued by the 1^st

respondent as against the petitioners.

5. Subsequently, first petitioner has been granted bail by this

Court in Crl.O.P.No.29309 of 2013 on 04.12.2012, while other

petitioners were granted Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.No.27500 of

2012 and 27499 of 2012 on 08.04.2013.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view

of the L.O.C. order, Indian as well as foreign Airports Authorities

are not allowing the petitioners to land their airports. The learned

counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners are

on bail, they made arrangements to defend themselves in the criminal

case. In none of the bail orders, there is any stipulation preventing

that they shall not leave the country. They are not absconders. They

are business people. They have their residences and lot of

properties in Chennai. They have strong roots in Chennai. The

learned counsel further submitted that even as per the instructions

relating to issuance of L.O.C. petitioners will not come under the

category of persons mentioned therein. There are instances where

this Court had withdrawn L.O.C. In the circumstances, the L.O.C.

inhibits their freedom of movement. Thus, the L.O.C. order is

required to be withdrawn.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioners have been granted bail, anticipatory bail, as the case

may be. But, it does not require to withdraw the L.O.C. order. Even

apart from getting bail or anticipatory bail, if the offences are

serious in nature, persons movements are required to be watched

L.O.C. can be issued.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials on records.

9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a

criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. It is the

fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreig