The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has ordered the immediate withdrawal of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Aditya Kaushik, a British citizen, permitting him to resume international travel subject to stringent financial and procedural conditions. The decision, delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma, marks a significant intervention in a complex legal struggle stemming from two cross-FIRs involving a contentious property dispute in the Solan district. By setting aside the restrictive order, the court underscored the necessity of balancing the investigative requirements of law enforcement agencies with the fundamental movement rights of individuals.

The controversy originated from FIR No. 77 of 2025, registered at the Kandaghat Police Station, where Aditya Kaushik, as the proprietor of M/s Aditya Resorts , alleged that his name and signature were forged on documents submitted to the District Tourism Development Officer. This was followed by a subsequent FIR, No. 79 of 2025, filed by the director of M/s Silvanus Hospitality Private Limited , accusing Kaushik of fraudulent misrepresentation during a property transaction involving the resort and adjoining land. Allegations centered on the transferability of property and the status of long-expired agreements, eventually leading local authorities to issue an LOC on July 18, 2025 , to ensure the petitioner remained in India for the duration of the investigation.

Scrutinizing the Necessity of Coercive Measures

During the proceedings, the High Court scrutinized the justification provided by the state for curbing the petitioner's mobility. While the police maintained that the LOC was a necessary precaution due to the petitioner’s foreign citizenship and the apprehension that he might leave the country, the court found these arguments insufficient to justify such a severe restraint. Justice Sandeep Sharma highlighted that there was no substantive evidence to suggest that the petitioner had actively attempted to evade the investigation or that he had ignored any non-bailable warrants or other formal coercive processes issued by the trial court .

The bench leaned heavily on established precedents, including the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the landmark case of Summer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director and Others . These guidelines clearly delineate that an LOC is not to be used as a routine tool for police convenience but is reserved for situations where an accused is deliberately evading the process of law or is likely to abscond to escape justice. In this instance, the court concluded that the police had acted on mere apprehension rather than concrete behavioral patterns warranting such a measure. The court observed, “There is nothing to suggest that petitioner herein, who admittedly is a British Resident, ever attempted to evade his arrest or despite issuance of coercive measures /non bailable warrants, had failed to appear before the Trial Court /investigation agency.”

Reconciling Civil Disputes and Criminal Proceedings

A central pillar of the court’s analysis was the observation that the underlying conflict between the parties—a sale and purchase agreement of property—bore the hallmarks of a civil dispute rather than a criminal one. The court expressed satisfaction that the criminal litigation appeared to be an attempt to apply external pressure to resolve a contractual impasse . Given that the petitioner holds substantial assets in Panchkula and Kandaghat, the court found it premature to conclude that he would flee the jurisdiction. The absence of any bail conditions prohibiting travel further bolstered the petitioner's claim that the LOC was disproportionate to the actual legal circumstances of the case.

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted the reactive nature of the police action, stating, “This Court is convinced and satisfied that though the dispute inter se the parties is purely civil in nature, but an attempt has been made to give criminal colour to it.” Consequently, the court held that the LOC was issued in haste, lacking the specific conditions or exceptional circumstances required for such an intrusive action against a foreign national.

Conditions for Resuming Travel

While granting the relief, the court sought to ensure that the ongoing investigative process would remain unimpeded. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, the court imposed a specific set of conditions. The petitioner is required to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the sum of ₹10 lakh before the trial court within one week. Additionally, he must provide two local sureties in the amount of ₹2 lakh each, demonstrating his commitment to remaining accessible for any future legal requirements.

Beyond the financial security, the court mandated that the petitioner maintain an open line of communication with the investigating agency. This includes a strict obligation to join the investigation whenever formally called upon and to participate in trial court proceedings unless granted a formal exemption. Furthermore, the petitioner must submit his current UK address, email identification, and contact numbers to the local trial court to ensure that he remains reachable for the entirety of the judicial process.

With the High Court’s directive, the Bureau of Immigration and relevant authorities are now expected to update their databases, removing the restriction that had effectively grounded the petitioner. This order reaffirms the judiciary's role in verifying the threshold of evidence required for state-imposed travel restrictions, ensuring that investigations proceed effectively without unnecessarily infringing upon the rights of the accused to travel, particularly in matters that originate from civil disagreements. As the procedural requirements are fulfilled, the petitioner is expected to regain his liberty to travel internationally, while the criminal proceedings initiated under FIR No. 79 of 2025 continue in the subordinate courts as per the normal process of law.