Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on February 21 by ShadesOfKnife

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the legality of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in a matrimonial-related criminal case.

The Court held that authorities cannot issue an LOC routinely. The Court emphasised that an LOC affects personal liberty and must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and the case did not fall within exceptional categories, the Court directed withdrawal of the LOC.

Before reproducing the relevant extracts, the Court examined the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the statutory guidelines governing Look-Out Circulars.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgment:

“14. 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].”
“14. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”
“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.”
“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…”
“20. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted.”
“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… forthwith.”

Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the authorities to withdraw the Look-Out Circular forthwith. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for travel permission in the pending criminal case.

Bagadi Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Posted on February 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that LOCs 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. Not in Section 498A IPC cases routinely.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, 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. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, 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, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who 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, 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 offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career. In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.
10. Sub-para (L) of the Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt), dated 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.

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of LOC Judgments is here.

Judgments about Look Out Circular Notices

Posted on March 25, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A short collection of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices.

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010 [DHC: issued certain guidelines to be followed for issuing Look Out Circulars]
S.Martin Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 Feb 2014 [MadHC: LOC can be withdrawn by the authorities concerned, who issued the same. Indeed, the Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in cancelling LOC or affirming the same is quite in tune with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant]
Rashmi Raikhy & Anr Vs The State of NCT Delhi & Ors on 1 Feb 2018 [DelhiHC: LOC cannot be mechanically issued in matrimonial disputes when accused are not absconding.]
Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019 [APHC: Follows Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010]
Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022 [DHC: No LOC may be issued when no proceedings under any penal law have, in fact, been initiated]
Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022 [PHHC: Non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC , and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure and therefore it is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India]
- However, the said directions are currently stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Noor Paul S.L.P.(C) No. 7733/2022. Last listing on 26-Sep-2022!) Jai ho, SCI!
Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022 [KarHC: ]
Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023 [TSHC: Practice of Telangana Police in not sending delete LOC requests to BoI, after a competent Criminal Court grants bail to an accused]
Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025 [APHC : Look-Out Circulars cannot be issued routinely and directed withdrawal of LOC affecting personal liberty.]
Mohammed Azeem Vs Saheeba and Ors on 22 Sep 2025 [KarHC : Family Courts cannot issue Look Out Circulars for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.]
Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026 [APHC: 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.]

MASTER INDEX is here.

Frequently Asked Questions – Look Out Circular (LOC) Jurisprudence in India

A Look Out Circular (LOC) is an alert issued by law enforcement authorities to immigration, police and border control agencies to prevent a person from leaving the country, usually where that person is an accused in a criminal investigation or trial. LOCs are intended to ensure that individuals do not evade court process or investigation.

Judicial decisions hold that LOCs should only be issued when there is reasonable apprehension that an accused may evade justice — for example:

The individual is absconding or likely to escape.
There is a pending investigation or trial under a penal statute.
Issuing an LOC without such circumstances is generally considered unjustified.

Yes. Courts have repeatedly held that:

The authority that issued the LOC can withdraw it.
Criminal courts can cancel or affirm an LOC on application, similar to the manner in which non-bailable warrants can be cancelled.
This ensures judicial oversight over LOC issuance and helps protect fundamental liberties.

No. Decisions such as Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India emphasise that an LOC cannot be issued in the absence of criminal proceedings, since there is no basis to believe the person is evading investigation or trial.

Yes. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Noor Paul v. Union of India held that non-supply of the LOC copy, lack of reasons for issuance, and absence of any hearing violate principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India (protection of life and personal liberty).

No. Courts have rejected the practice of issuing LOCs in contexts not grounded in criminal law, such as:

Maintenance enforcement under Section 125 CrPC (as reiterated by Karnataka High Court), and
Money recovery in civil or financial disputes.
LOC powers are for criminal process enforcement, not civil remedies.

Yes. In cases such as Yerramilli Srinivas v. State of Telangana, courts admonished police for not sending delete LOC requests to immigration authorities after bail has been granted, stressing that LOCs should not remain active once the accused appears or complies with court orders.

Yes. LOCs can restrict a person’s right to travel abroad, which is part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty). Therefore, LOC issuance must satisfy reasonableness, fairness, and due process.

Some judgments (e.g., Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. Union of India) state that LOCs may be justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as where departure of a person may be damaging to national security, sovereignty, or strategic interests — not as an ordinary procedural measure.

No. High Courts (e.g., Telangana High Court) have clarified that complainants do not have a fundamental right to insist upon issuance of an LOC — it is a discretionary executive/ investigative action guided by law, not by individual entitlement.

Constitutional courts have directed that:

LOCs must be withdrawn or deleted when they are no longer required.
Investigating authorities must regularly review LOCs and update immigration authorities.
Failure to do so can lead to judicial intervention or orders mandating LOC deletion.

Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023

Posted on October 8, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court deprecated the practice of Telangana Police in not sending delete LOC requests to BoI, after a competent Criminal Court grants bail to an accused.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. This Court has gone through the Circular that was issued by the respondents pursuant to the order passed by this Court. By and large, in criminal matters, particularly under Section 498-A IPC., where a complaint is given by wife and husband is residing abroad, without making even an effort to reach the person by way of e-mail or whatever communication, and without even coming to a conclusion that the said person is trying to avoid the investigation, police are straight away issuing the Look Out Circular, by that time, accused would not even be knowing that a case is registered against him by the respondents. In respect of accused persons who are outside the country, the police shall make an endeavour to communicate about the pending case to the said person. Recourse to LOC shall not be resorted to by the respondents in non-cognizable offences under IPC. or in any other laws if accused is not evading arrest or has not failed to appear before the Court. Necessarily issuing the Look Out Circular will affect the person’s right to movement and the respondents shall be very careful while opening the LOC and resort to it in compelling and extraordinary circumstances. Secondly, in the report that is filed by the Director General of Police, it is stated that LOC will be continued basing on their satisfaction whether the person is going to cooperate with the investigation or not. When once an accused is granted bail by the Court or a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is issued by the police, if the police have apprehensions about his non-cooperation with the investigation or trial, it is always open to the police to make an appropriate Application before the Court concerned for imposing a condition that the person be directed not to leave the country. Once the bail is granted, the respondent police cannot continue the LOC without further recourse to the Court. In every case, the police are opening the LOCs. and keeping it pending forever and causing irreparable loss and hardship to the accused who in some cases has no intention to evade the investigation. The other difficulty that has been expressed in several cases is that the respondents are not leaving a toll-free or a specific number with BOI. They are generally giving the number of the concerned Station House Officers and sometimes, if they do not pick up the calls, the person is made to wait for hours together in the Airport. The respondent police shall take appropriate steps to evolve procedure or they shall see that some mechanism is in place such as centralised 24 x 7 service to attend the calls in respect of LOC from Bureau of Investigation so that if the immigration has to contact the concerned they will be able to reach out and the inconvenience caused to the concerned may be minimised. Wherever LOCs. are opened, the respondent police shall review the same once in three months and in cases where bail is granted, they shall immediately close the LOCs. The officer concerned who fails to inform the BOI is responsible and if he fails to address the letter to BOI, appropriate action shall be initiated against him for the said lapses. The Courts have to always balance the interest of the accused as well as the societal interest.
8. Fundamental right of the citizen in the democratic setup plays a pivotal role. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 interpreted the scope of Article 21 in the widest possible manner. The fundamental rights of a citizen can only be curtailed by a procedure known to law. The police while issuing the look out circular has to be very cautious. The circular directions issued by the Director General of Police shall be scrupulously followed. The Director General of Police apart from issuing the circular shall also see that it is implemented and fix the accountability.

Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162671944/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/659eb9c767795103e653e2bd

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=823202811000&Title=YERRAMILLI-SRINIVAS-Vs.-STATE-OF-TELANGANA

https://lawsuitcasefinder.com/casedetail?id=U2FsdGVkX19hrqxZBmhqLvP3mplo2JtpfyJa3CjqW3EDUUMgs5

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

S.Martin Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 Feb 2014

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras HC held as follows.

From Para 46,

46.For the foregoing discussions, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Further, this Court directs the Petitioner/A2 to co-operate with the Investigating Agency in respect of Crime No.304 of 2012 by joining the investigation and to make his appearance before the Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Agency is to file a charge sheet before the concerned Court in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible (since the LOC cannot be issued periodically for a indefinite period and issuance of the same cannot hang on like a Damocle’s Sword on a Person’s Head). As and when the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, it is open to the Petitioner/A2 either to seek the aid of Authority/Officer (based on the request made by the concerned authority), who ordered
the issuance of LOC or the trial Court where a case is pending or having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station relating to the cancellation of LOC, (provided it is in force and alive), by filing necessary petition in accordance with law. Also that, the LOC can be withdrawn by the authorities concerned, who issued the same. Indeed, the Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in cancelling LOC or affirming the same is quite in tune with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant. Also, it is open to the Petitioner/A2 to seek permission of the trial Court by projecting necessary petition for proceeding abroad setting out necessary details/particulars, like places to which he intends visiting/ travelling, the addresses of the places where he would be staying or residing and the duration, the object of visit/travel etc., if so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

S.Martin Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 Feb 2014

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31460970/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4104a93261a672d99d2

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Single bench of AP High Court held as follows based on Sumer Salkan decision here.

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, issue of red corner notice against the family members of the husband of the victim of an offence punishable under Section 498- A of I.P.C is quashed. However, the Apex Court and the other courts laid down certain guidelines as to when such a red corner notice is to be issued. Based on the guidelines, issued in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and others1, the Delhi High Court observed as follows:
The questions are answered as under:
A. Recourse to 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 there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. Or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial Court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28103125/

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022

Posted on July 1, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Posted on May 31, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

(57) In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC , and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India.

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56219635/

https://legiteye.com/in-cwp-5492-2022-om-punj-hc-non-supply-of-copy-of-look-out-circular-to-person-travelling-abroad-is-not-fair-and-reasonable-procedure-holds-ph-hc-justices-ramachandra-rao-harminder-singh-madaa/

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022

Posted on May 31, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

What clearly emerges is that in the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a situation, where a FIR had already been lodged and a criminal investigation was ongoing against the person against whom the LOC had been issued. The same was the situation in S. Martin v. Deputy Commissioner of Police SCC OnLine Mad 426. In the present case, as has already been noted, no proceedings under any penal law have, in fact, been initiated against the petitioner. These decisions are therefore, clearly distinguishable and do not, in any manner forward the case of the respondents.

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022

Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 97]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172206187/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61e011eb9fca1952d4e03e62

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Posted on May 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Delhi High Court had issued certain guidelines to be followed for issuing Look Out Circulars.

A. Recourse to 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 there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing I.O or should surrender the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Citations : [2010 JCC 4 2401], [2010 ILR DEL 6 706], [2010 DMC 2 666], [2010 CCR 4 134], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2699]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26846768/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea8d9d607dba371ebca94a

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Look Out Circular Notices

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Decision

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Judgments about Look Out Circular Notices

Frequently Asked Questions – Look Out Circular (LOC) Jurisprudence in India

Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023

S.Martin Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 Feb 2014

Gattupalli Ujwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 30 Oct 2019

Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Decision

Frequently Asked Questions – Look Out Circular (LOC) Jurisprudence in India

1. What is a Look Out Circular (LOC)?+

2. When can an LOC lawfully be issued?+

3. Do courts have power to cancel or withdraw an LOC?+

4. Can LOCs be issued if no FIR or criminal proceeding exists?+

5. Do authorities need to provide reasons or procedural fairness before issuing an LOC?+

6. Can a family court or non-criminal forum issue an LOC in civil or maintenance proceedings?+

7. Is there any obligation on investigating officers after a bail order is granted?+

8. Do LOCs affect fundamental rights?+

9. Can LOCs be issued for national security or exceptional cases?+

10. Do complainants have a right to demand an LOC?+

11. How should authorities manage LOCs after they are no longer justified?+