Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bagadi Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2025
APHC010090202025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4788/2025
Between:
1. BAGADI SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE RAM CHANDRA NAIDU.B
AGED 39 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 528, FLOOR, FLORA DELIGHT
APARTMENTS, REVALLAPALEM, MADHURWADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM (RURAL), ANDHRA PRADESH - 53004
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -
110 001.
2. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
(IMMIGRATION), EAST BLOCK - VIII, LEVAL - V, SECTOR, 1, R.K.
PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 066.
3. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR
(IMMIGRATION), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 066.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGPOFFICE, 6 BN, A.P.S.P.,
MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM ,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AIRPORT POLICE STATION,
VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP
2
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to pleased to issue a direction or Order more like Writ of Mandamus
declaring the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against Petitioner by the
Respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of Respondents 4 to 6 in Crime No. 319 of
2024 Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam of Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, and Unconstitutional and to
consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the
case, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the Look-Out Circular ((LOC) issued against Petitioner by
Respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of Respondents 4 to 6 in in Crime No. 319
of 2024 Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam of Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh pending disposal of the main criminal petition pending disposal of
the above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. O UDAYA KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
::ORDER:
:
Heard Dr. Sattaru Rajani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ajay,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 4
to 6 and Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned Central Government counsel appearing
for respondents 1 to 3.
3
2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the Look-Out Circular issued
against the petitioner by respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of 4 to 6 in
Criminal No.319 of 2024, Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and
arbitrary and a violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner has been working as a Manager in Capgemini Australia.
He came to India on 01.02.2025 to attend the last rites of his father-in-law.
The petitioner was detained in Visakhapatnam Airport, and he was informed
about the Look-Out Circular pending against him.
4. Smt Thammineni Jyothsna Rani, filed a complaint against the petitioner,
mother, sister and another alleging harassment before Disha Police Station,
Visakhapatnam. The Police registered the case in Crime No.670 of 2021 for
the offences under Sections 498A, 506, 323 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Later the Police filed a charge sheet on the
file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The
same is numbered as C.C.No.2568 of 2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice under
Section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner and others, who cooperated
during the investigation.
6. The petitioner is not aware of the filing of a charge sheet in Crime
No.670 of 2021. The petitioner left for Australia on 01.05.2024 because of his
employment.
7. The petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.23 of 2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce. The F.C.O.P.No.23 of 2023 was
allowed on 28.06.2023 by dissolving the marriage solemnized on 19.08.2014.
Smt Tammineni Jyothsna Rani remained exparte in the F.C.O.P.No.23 of
2023, as seen from the judgement. After the marriage between the petitioner
and Smt Thammineni Jyothsna Rani was dissolved, the charge sheet was
filed in Crime No.670 of 2021 the same was numbed as C.C.No.2568 of 2021.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that after the
dissolving of the marriage by the competent Court, the petitioner married Smt
4
U.Swathi on 07.08.2024. Thereafter Smt Thammineni Jyothsna Rani filed
another complaint before Airport Police on 10.09.2024. The same was
registered as Crime No.319 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 for the offences under
Sections 85 & 82 of the BNS Act, 2023.
9. The 5th respondent issued a Look-Out Circular, in the said crime,
against the petitioner and the same was forwarded to respondents 1 to 3.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that issuance of a Look-
Out circular cannot be resorted routinely. Learned counsel relied upon the
judgment in Avinash Reddy Paladugu vs. Bureau of Immigration (BOI),
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others1.
11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions,
would submit that the Police registered a case against the petitioner and
others vide FIR No.319 of 2024 on 17.09.2024 for the offences under Sections
85 & 82 of BNS Act, 2023. The family members of the petitioner have not
cooperated during the investigation. Hence, the investigation officer requested
the 5th respondent to issue a Look-Out circular. He would also submit that the
family members of the petitioner did not inform the petitioner’s address in
Australia. The respondents did not harass the petitioner except discharge of
duties.
Consideration:
12. In Avinash Reddy Paladugu case, the learned Single Judge of
Telangana High Court, considered issuance of Look-Out Circular vis-à-vis a
crime registered under Section 498A IPC.
13. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi2, regarding the proposition that 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 rights1
2024 (4) ALD 145
2
(2013) 15 SCC 570
5including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another3 and Satish
Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others4, to the proposition that
the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty.
14. In E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy vs. State5, the Madras High Court while
setting aside an LOC, observed as under:
“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 foreign countries. One’s such
personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged.[See: Article 21
Constitution of India]. In the celebrated in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF
INDIA[AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon’ble Supreme Court WP_515_2024 SN,J
upheld the constitutional right of persons to go abroad. The phrase no one
shall be deprived of his “life and liberty” except procedure established by law
employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental right
and human right. MENAKA GANTHI (supra) ushered a new era in the
annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept
of ‘Due Process of Law’.
10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign
countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are
wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are anti-social
elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arose to apprehend
persons, who have ability to fly, flee away the country. So, L.O.C. orders are
issued. It is an harmonius way out between a person’s fundamental right and
interest of the society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable.
It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”
15. Eventually, a direction was issued to the petitioner to withdraw the
Look-Out Circular forthwith.
16. A Look-Out Circular was issued cannot be cancelled unless the
originator withdraws the Look-Out Circular. The guidelines on the Look-Out
3
AIR 1978 SC 597
4
2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048
5
2013 SCC Online Mad.4092
6
Circular were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM
No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021.
17. Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 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 and that no Look-
Out Circular shall be deleted automatically. Indeed, clause J also casts an
obligation on the originating agency to review the Look-Out Circular on a
quarterly/annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same.
18. Sub-para L of the circular dt.22.02.2021 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 the bilateral relations with any country or to the
strategic and/or economic interests of India or that person may potentially
indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State, if such person is
allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public
interest at any given point of time.
19. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the case registered against the
petitioner is under Sections 85 & 82 of the BNS Act, 2023. The instructions
mentioned in Sub-para L of the circular, the case hand may not warrant
issuance of LOC. 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. The authority, in the considered opinion of this court, shall
apply its thoughts to the facts of each case before issuing LOC. 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.
20. In the case at hand, the Police already served notice under Section
35(3) of BNSS. The petitioner, in fact, furnished sureties, and cooperated with
the investigation. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is
unwarranted.
7
21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.
22. Since the petitioner is accused in C.C.No.2568 of 2021 on the file of the
I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and summons
were already served in the criminal case, the petitioner shall cooperate for
expeditious disposal of the criminal case.
23. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit
that the petitioner has to make an appropriate application in C.C.No.2568 of
2021 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam, and after getting permission, he can go abroad for the job.
Given the same, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appropriate
application before learned I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in
C.C.No.2568 of 2021. If such an application is filed, 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.
23. With the above observations the writ petition is allowed. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Dated: 12.03.2025
SNI
8
63
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4788/2025
Dated: 12.03.2025
SNI
