Back
Expresses Displeasure Over Look Out Circular Against Advocate-Cricketer Aravind Reddy in Stalking Case
The has strongly criticised the police for issuing a against advocate-cricketer Aravind Reddy in a stalking case involving . The court disposed of the after the state government agreed not to enforce the travel ban any further.
Justice T.P. Vivekananda, presiding over a single bench, recorded the state’s submission that the LOC would no longer be implemented, as the petitioner had already been arrested and released on bail. However, the court did not mince words in expressing its disapproval of the police action.
Background: A Cricket Trip Cut Short
Aravind Reddy, an advocate by profession and former captain of the Indian Advocate's Cricket Team, was arrested at Kempegowda International Airport on , upon his return from Sri Lanka, where he had gone to participate in a cricket tournament. The arrest was triggered by a Look Out Circular issued by the in connection with an FIR registered on .
The FIR, filed by a woman in the entertainment industry, alleged offences under —all of which are bailable in nature. The petitioner claimed he had been in a live-in relationship with the complainant for six months, and that their relationship had soured.
Argument from the Bar
The petitioner, represented by advocate , contended that the LOC was illegal and arbitrary, issued without following proper procedure. He argued that his and under had been violated. The arrest at the airport, he said, generated massive media and social media attention, tarnishing his reputation.
On the other hand, Additional Government Advocate , appearing for the state, justified the LOC on the ground that the petitioner frequently travelled abroad and was not easily contactable for investigation. She maintained that the circular was issued only to secure his presence.
Court's Scrutiny: 'No '
The court examined the timeline closely. The FIR was registered on , but the petitioner travelled to Sri Lanka only on —nearly three weeks later. He returned to India on , and was arrested immediately.
“From till , what steps the respondent police have taken to trace the petitioner is not forthcoming from the papers,” the court observed in its order.
The bench further noted: “It is on record that the petitioner has traveled to Sri Lanka only on and it cannot be said that in anticipation of his arrest in respect of the crime registered on , the petitioner has travelled to abroad.”
Earlier, on , the court had granted on the LOC, observing that there was “no danger of the petitioner being a requiring a Lookout Circular imposing a travel ban on the petitioner.”
Deep Displeasure Expressed
In the final order, the court recorded its strong disapproval:
“This Court expresses deep displeasure against respondent Nos.3 to 5 for taking extreme step of issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular against the petitioner, pursuant a crime registered against the petitioner for the .”
The court refrained from examining the petitioner’s other grievances, including the alleged , noting that those constituted a separate . It also noted that the petitioner had not yet approached the , and could do so if he wished.
Disposal of the Petition
Recording the state’s submission that the LOC would not be enforced further, the court disposed of the . The order leaves open the possibility of the petitioner seeking separate remedies for the alleged infringement of his human rights.
The case highlights the need for when law enforcement agencies impose travel bans, especially in cases involving and individuals with no demonstrated .
