IN THE COURT OF THE LD. ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant/accused's nameVERSUS Respondent's name
FIR NO. FIR number
U/S: 420/471/168 OF IPC
P.S.: Police station, District
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED, Applicant/accused's name, FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LOOK-OUT CIRCULAR (LOC) OPENED / ISSUED AGAINST THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO. FIR number.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.That the aforesaid case is pending before this Hon'ble Court, and the charge-sheet has been filed in the aforesaid FIR against the applicant / accused.
2.That there is no basis for the issuance of the LOC against the applicant / accused. It is pertinent to mention herein that notice under Section 41A of the CrPC was served upon the applicant / accused through WhatsApp or email, and the applicant has always given a reply / response to the same to the Investigating Officer of the case who issued the notice. The issuance of the LOC against the applicant is itself bad in law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The LOC, if any, pending in the name of the applicant / accused is also contrary to the objective for which an LOC may be issued.
3.That the issuance of the LOC pending against the applicant / accused violates the accused's rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, which include, amongst others, the right to hold a passport and the right to travel.
4.That the applicant / accused is a businessman and is associated with several domestic and international forums for the promotion of economic relations amongst various countries across the globe, from which source he earns his living. Due to business purposes, the applicant frequently travels outside India. It is submitted that the applicant has never absconded from any proceeding or investigation, has always responded to the letters / notices of the Investigating Officer as and when served upon the applicant / accused, and has always remained available to join the investigation.
5.That the applicant / accused has been fully cooperating with the investigating authority, has appeared before it whenever required, and has always responded to its notices / letters.
6.That the grounds on which the LOC was issued are no longer valid, as the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before this Hon'ble Court. There is no need for any further investigation in this matter, and nothing incriminating was found against the applicant / accused by the investigating officer.
7.That the applicant / accused is not a flight risk and has strong ties to the community, as demonstrated by his family, who are dependent upon him, and by his being an ex-public servant having accountability towards the nation. It is pertinent to mention herein that the applicant / accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, and it is a clear case of vendetta, as the wife of the applicant / accused implicated the applicant / accused in the present case on account of their matrimonial dispute, and multiple litigations are pending between them.
8.Thus, the applicant / accused prays for the cancellation of the Look-Out Circular as prayed for in the main application, and subsequently prays that the applicant / accused be permitted to travel abroad in order to attend an important business meeting.
9.The issuance of the LOC is causing grave prejudice to the applicant / accused. It is relevant to mention that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and cannot be restrained without any basis in law.
10.That in various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is a matter of constitutional right to go abroad. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, held that: -
“Even if the power to impound the passport were regarded as administrative in character, because it seriously interferes with the constitutional right of the holder of the passport to go abroad and entails adverse civil consequences.”
11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019(2) SCT 741 (SC), also held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right of great significance. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
“5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows: Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.”
12.It is submitted that the liberty of a person is his fundamental right, and the same cannot be violated by the Investigating Officer by taking recourse to the illegal action of issuance of an LOC, without being authorised under law to do so. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597, wherein it has been held that:
“..under Article 21 the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable through which life or personal liberty is taken away. If this is permitted to be done, then it will be simply putting a premium on the inaptness or callous attitude of the Investigating Agency and also working to the detriment of the fundamental right of an under trial who may be enlarged on bail. The purpose of imposition of such a condition, as has already been stated hereinbefore, is to ensure that the accused must submit herself to the processes of law. The said purpose can be secured by modifying the said condition of surrendering the passport and obtaining the permission from the Court by requiring the accused to either furnish some title deed of an immovable property to the Court to ensure that she does not flee from the processes of law or by imposing some additional conditions.
9. The Petitioner in the instant case has categorically stated that she has interest in immovable property at Delhi as well as at Goa, therefore I feel that the interest of the Investigating Agency can be secured by ensuring that she makes herself available during the course of the trial by requiring her to file an undertaking that she will make herself available during the course of investigation or trial.
10.For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the prayer of the Petitioner for waiving the condition of surrendering her passport and obtaining the permission from the competent court in terms of the order dated 21st August, 2009 is working very onerous on the Petitioner restricting her freedom of movement and her right to travel abroad under guaranteed Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in view of the fact that already 3½ years have elapsed and yet the Investigating Agency has not filed the final report. Accordingly, the said condition is dispensed with, however the Petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking in writing to the Registrar General of this Court that she will make herself available during the course of investigation or the trial as and when she is required apart from furnishing itinerary of her travel abroad to the IO, including the place where she is likely to stay and the countries she proposes to visit and the date of departure and the date of return. This condition will be deemed to have been incorporated as a condition of the bail till the charge sheet is filed and after the charge sheet is filed, she would ensure that the trial of the case shall not be adjourned or deferred on the ground that she is undertaking to travel abroad.”
13.That this Hon'ble High Court recently, in Writ Petition bearing No. Writ petition number titled as Jayant Nanda v. Union of India, allowed the assesses' civil misc. application seeking permission to travel abroad on a business tour to Destinations of the proposed business tour during the pendency of the Writ Petition against a look-out circular.
14.That this Hon'ble High Court, vide Order dated Date of the High Court order suspending the Look Out Circular in W.P.C 12169/2021 titled as Manan Goel vs. Union of India and Ors, was pleased to permit the applicant / accused to travel abroad for a period of eight weeks to Germany, Switzerland and the UK, by suspending the Look Out Circular issued against him at the behest of Name of the bank at whose behest the Look Out Circular was issued.
15.That the applicant / accused has deep roots in society and commands respect in social circles. Consequently, there is no likelihood of the applicant / accused absconding or fleeing from the country, or of hampering the course of investigation in any manner. Under these circumstances, the applicant / accused most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application for cancellation of the Look Out Circular and to grant him permission to travel abroad in order to attend important business meetings and for other genuine purposes.
16.That it is humbly submitted that, upon the present application being allowed by this Hon'ble Court, the applicant / accused shall file an affidavit disclosing the detailed itinerary of his trip and the particulars of his stay during such trip, together with an undertaking that the applicant / accused shall not seek any extension of his stay abroad, and that his counsel shall remain present before this Hon'ble Court in the event of any proceedings during the said period.
17.That the applicant / accused undertakes that he shall not dispute his identity in respect of any proceedings, if any, conducted in his absence, and further undertakes that he has instructed his counsel to appear before this Hon'ble Court, to assist this Hon'ble Court in every manner possible, and not to seek any delay of the proceedings during the period of his absence.
18.That the applicant / accused shall suffer grave harm, irreparable loss and injury in the event the present application is not allowed. On the other hand, no prejudice shall be caused to the Respondent, namely Respondent's name, in the event the present application is allowed and permission to travel abroad is granted to the applicant / accused.
19.That the present application is being filed bona fide and in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
A.Pass such orders and directions as may be necessary, allowing the present application, cancelling the Look Out Circular, and permitting the applicant / accused to travel abroad / outside India freely with the permission of this Hon'ble Court;
AND
B.Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
APPLICANT / ACCUSED
Through
Place: Place of filing
Dated:
Counsel's name
Counsel's chamber address
Counsel's enrolment number
Counsel's chamber address line 2
Counsel's chamber address line 3
Mob. No. Counsel's mobile number
Email: Counsel's email address