Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Y Vikranth Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 1 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Writ Petition No.15634 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
NO. NOTE
2. 01.07.2025 SRK, J
IA No.1 of 2025
Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that a case in Crime No.30 of
2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri was
registered against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 506, 384, 420, 109,
467, 120B read with 34 IPC and Section 111 of
BNS.
Learned counsel further contends that the
petitioner herein filed Criminal Petition No.8912 of
2024 on the file of this Court under Section 482 of
BNS seeking anticipatory bail in connection with
the said crime. Vide Order, date 07.03.2025, this
Court allowed the aforesaid Criminal Petition
granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein,
with certain conditions. Subsequently, the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 issued Look-Out Circular
2
SL. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
NO. NOTE
(LOC) against the petitioner in connection with
Crime No.30 of 2024 of CID Police Station,
Mangalagiri, in which, the petitioner was already
granted anticipatory bail, which is nothing but
curtailing the rights of the petitioner to travel
abroad.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader
opposed the Writ Petition and seeks time for
getting instructions.
Heard. Perused the record.
The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been
defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan
Vs Assistant Director‘s case in W.P.(Crl.) No.1315
of 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2006, High Court of
Delhi held that LOC can be taken by investigating
agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other
penal laws where the accused was deliberately
evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court
despite NBWs and other coercive measures and if
there is any likelihood of accused leaving the
3
SL. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
NO. NOTE
country to evade trial/arrest and only in those
circumstances, LOC can be opened as against the
accused therein. It is trite that the recourse can be
had for issue of LOC by the police only in drastic
contingencies. Without there being any proper
procedure followed, coming to conclusion, to issue
LOC is bad. It is not that the accused is not
cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest.
By virtue of opening the LOC, the personal
liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are
only the circular instructions that have been issued
by the respondent/police only with a view to detain
a person or to see that he will cooperate with the
trial. It has become common for the respondent/
police without looking into the aspects whether the
petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is
evading arrest, in mechanical manner are opening
the LOCs. It is essential that the police have to
open LOCs against the persons who are the
accused for grave offences or the persons who
4
SL. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
NO. NOTE
are involved in financial irregularities or the
offences which are against the Society. In such
cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening
the LOCs against the accused in not permitting
them to leave the country. If the accusation
against the accused persons is such that it is
detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be
issued. In the case on hand, the offences alleged
are under Sections 506, 384, 420, 109, 467, 120B
read with 34 IPC and Section 111 of BNS. By
virtue of opening LOC, there is every chance that
the petitioner is obstructed or restrained from
travelling within or outside India and by virtue of
opening LOC the personal liberty of the person
would be affected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wound
contend that the petitioner has got fixed abode
and the family members of the petitioner are
residing in India, there is no flight risk, therefore,
question of absconding of the petitioner would not
5
SL. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
NO. NOTE
arise.
In views of the above facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State
of Punjab1; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and
another2; Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India
(UOI) and others3; Noor Paul v. Union of India and
others4, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI5, there shall
be interim suspension of operation of Look-Out
Circular (LOC) issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4
against the petitioner in connection with Crime
No.30 of 2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri.
W.P.No.15634 of 2025
List the matter after four (04) weeks.
______
SRK, J
DNB
1
(1980) 2 SCC 565.
2
AIR 1978 SC 597.
3
2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048
4
2022 SCC on P&H 3408.
5
(2024) 9 SCC 198.