Back
Frees Traveler from LOC Shackles: Stay Order Trumps Police Hold
In a decisive ruling, the has directed police authorities to recall a against Mohammed Ashiq , a 27-year-old employed in Saudi Arabia, after criminal proceedings against him were stayed under . Single Judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum emphasized that such LOCs cannot linger when the underlying case is paused, protecting the accused's constitutional right to livelihood. This order, delivered on , in WP No. 6111 of 2026 , underscores judicial oversight over administrative barriers to travel.
A Worker Abroad Caught in Legal Limbo
Mohammed Ashiq, residing in Shirva village, Udupi district, faces charges under in Crime No. 117/2019 at . A charge-sheet was filed, but Ashiq secured a stay on further proceedings via Criminal Petition No. 4709/2025 under —orders marked as Annexure-D.
Despite this, the Station House Officer refused a and kept the LOC active, blocking Ashiq's international travel for work. Frustrated, Ashiq petitioned the High Court under , naming the , Chief Immigration Officer at Mangaluru Airport, and Udupi police officials as respondents. The core grievance: Why enforce an LOC when the case itself is on ice?
Petitioner's Plea vs. Police Persistence
Ashiq's counsel, , argued that the stay obliterates any need for the LOC, as no investigation or trial requires his presence. Continued enforcement, they claimed, arbitrarily curtails his right to practice his profession abroad.
Respondents, represented by for immigration authorities and for police, did not contest the stay's validity but maintained the LOC amid the charge-sheeted offenses. However, the court found no sustainable basis for refusal, noting the proceedings' halt removes the " " for such measures.
Bench Draws Line: Precedents Seal the Deal
Justice Magadum relied on a " " from coordinate benches, holding that LOCs—meant to secure accused presence—lose purpose post-stay. He clarified: When courts invoke inherent powers under , all " " must abate. Police, as state instrumentalities, cannot undermine judicial orders.
The ruling aligns with prior cases where similar stays prompted LOC recalls, rejecting arbitrary continuation as it nullifies court directives. Crucially, it ties into fundamental rights: Blocking overseas employment without "subsisting legal necessity" infringes livelihood protections.
As echoed in legal commentary, this iteration reinforces that an LOC
"should not become an interference to carry on with the profession of a person"
once stayed.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"Once the proceedings are stayed, it necessarily implies that the petitioner is not required to participate either in investigation or trial during the subsistence of the stay order."
"Continuation of an LOC in the face of a subsisting stay order would be arbitrary and unsustainable, as the purpose of such LOC namely, to secure the presence of the accused no longer survives."
"The Station House Officer, being an, is bound to give full effect to the judicial order passed by this Court and cannot act in derogation thereof."
"The petitioner’s right to livelihood, particularly when he is employed abroad, is protected underof the."
Liberty to Fly: Court's Clear Directives
The writ petition stands allowed . Key orders include:
- Respondents 3 and 4 (SHO and SP, Udupi) must recall the LOC and keep it in abeyance pending Criminal Petition No. 4709/2025.
- Immigration (R2) and SHO (R3) barred from enforcing it during the stay.
- Police to notify immigration post-verification of Ashiq's job, visa, and travel details.
- Expedited action upon details furnished to enable travel.
This precedent strengthens safeguards for NRIs and overseas workers, ensuring stays aren't undermined by LOCs. Future cases may see swifter NOC issuances, balancing probe needs with personal freedoms— a win for proportionality in criminal procedure.
