“A LOC Is a Coercive Measure Impacting Liberty”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Withdrawal of Look-Out Circular, Citing Fundamental Rights Under Article 21
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that issuance of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) cannot be resorted to indiscriminately and must be applied with judicial scrutiny, especially where it affects the fundamental right to liberty and free movement. A single-judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti passed the order on March 12, 2025, in Amaravati, directing the withdrawal of a LOC issued against a petitioner in a dowry harassment case. The court observed that a LOC is a coercive measure and should not be used without due cause.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti recorded, “A Look-Out Circular which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interfere with his right to personal liberty and free movement certainly has adverse civil consequences.” The court further directed that the petitioner is at liberty to seek permission from the concerned trial court to travel abroad for employment and instructed that such a request shall be considered in view of the petitioner’s reporting obligations overseas.
The petitioner, Bagadi Santosh Kumar, working as a Manager at Capgemini Australia, returned to India on February 1, 2025, to attend a family funeral. Upon arrival at Visakhapatnam Airport, the petitioner was informed of a LOC issued against him at the instance of local police authorities, connected to Crime No. 319 of 2024 registered at Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
The petitioner challenged the LOC, seeking its withdrawal, and contended that the issuance was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case traces back to a complaint filed by Smt. Thammineni Jyothsna Rani against the petitioner and his family, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Crime No. 670 of 2021 was registered at Disha Police Station, Visakhapatnam, with the charge sheet later numbered as C.C. No. 2568 of 2021 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
The petitioner submitted that he and his family had cooperated fully with the investigation and were served with notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner left for Australia on May 1, 2024, for professional reasons and was unaware of further proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that following dissolution of the petitioner’s marriage to the complainant via Family Court decree dated June 28, 2023, the petitioner married another individual on August 7, 2024. Subsequently, Smt. Thammineni Jyothsna Rani lodged another complaint on September 10, 2024, resulting in Crime No. 319 of 2024 under Sections 85 and 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.
The LOC was issued by the 5th respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam District, and forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration, Government of India.
The petitioner argued that such action was disproportionate and referred to the judgment of the Telangana High Court in Avinash Reddy Paladugu v. Bureau of Immigration (2024 (4) ALD 145), where the court stressed that issuance of a LOC must not infringe on the fundamental right to liberty unless justified.
On behalf of respondents 4 to 6, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the LOC was necessitated as the petitioner’s family had failed to cooperate fully during investigations and had not disclosed the petitioner’s residential details abroad. It was contended that the respondents merely discharged their official duties.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti recorded that the facts did not warrant issuance of a LOC in the petitioner’s case. Referring to binding precedents, the court observed, “In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another, the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty.” Further, the court recorded, “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The court cited the Madras High Court’s decision in E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy v. State [2013 SCC Online Mad.4092], which held, “Merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights.” It continued, “The fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, their movements can be regulated. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”
Referring to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated February 22, 2021, the court noted, “Sub-para J mandates that a Look-Out Circular shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator.”
It was further recorded, “Clause L of the circular indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to bilateral relations with any country.”
Justice Subba Reddy Satti found that the circumstances of the petitioner’s case did not meet the threshold outlined in Sub-para L. The court remarked, “By the date of registering the crime, the petitioner resides in Australia and thus the petitioner may not be aware of the issuance of the Look-Out Circular.”
It was also recorded that “The authority, in the considered opinion of this court, shall apply its thoughts to the facts of each case before issuing LOC.”
The court also took note that the petitioner had already complied with notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha and had furnished sureties while cooperating during the investigation.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti ordered that “the 5th respondent shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024 on 17.09.2024, Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam forthwith.” The court also noted that “the petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the criminal case” pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Further, the court permitted the petitioner to apply to the trial court for leave to travel abroad and recorded, “The learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam shall consider and pass appropriate orders, keeping in view, the fact that the petitioner has to report to the employer on 15.03.2025.”
Advocates representing the parties:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Sattaru Rajani
For the Respondents: GP for Home, O. Udaya Kumar (Central Government Counsel)
Case Title: Bagadi Santosh Kumar v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010090202025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4788/2025
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
[Read/Download order]
