Introduction:

In Bagadi Santosh Kumar v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO: 4788/2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, through Justice Subba Reddy Satti, ruled that a Look-Out Circular (LOC) is a coercive measure that significantly impacts an individual’s personal liberty and freedom of movement. The Court emphasized that authorities must exercise due diligence and apply their minds before issuing such directives. The case arose when the petitioner, a Manager at Capgemini Australia, traveled to India for his father-in-law’s last rites but was detained at Visakhapatnam Airport due to a pending LOC. The LOC was issued in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024, registered at Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam, based on a complaint by the petitioner’s former wife, Smt. Thammineni Jyothsna Rani. The petitioner challenged the LOC as illegal and arbitrary, asserting that it violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court examined the circumstances under which the LOC was issued and found that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, rendering the coercive measure unnecessary. Consequently, the Court directed the withdrawal of the LOC and allowed the petition.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the LOC was issued arbitrarily and without proper justification. They argued that the petitioner had already cooperated with the investigation when initially accused under Sections 498A, 506, and 323 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A charge sheet had been filed in that case, and the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings. Moreover, he had been served with a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C and had complied with the requirements. The petitioner further submitted that after securing a divorce from his former wife, Smt. Thammineni Jyothsna Rani, and marrying another woman, he was subjected to fresh allegations under Sections 85 and 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This second complaint led to the issuance of the impugned LOC. The petitioner’s counsel argued that at the time of its issuance, the petitioner was residing in Australia and was unaware of it. Furthermore, a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had already been served, and the petitioner had provided sureties and cooperated with the authorities. The defense emphasized that an LOC should not be used as a tool for harassment, especially when the accused has demonstrated willingness to comply with legal procedures. They argued that the LOC served no purpose other than to restrict the petitioner’s fundamental rights, particularly his right to travel and personal liberty.

On the other hand, the respondents, including the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, argued that the LOC was issued as a precautionary measure in light of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. They contended that given the gravity of the allegations under Sections 85 and 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, restricting the petitioner’s travel was necessary to ensure his presence in the investigation. The authorities further argued that LOCs serve as an essential tool for law enforcement in cases where there is a likelihood of an accused evading due process. The respondents maintained that since the petitioner was living abroad, the LOC was issued in good faith to prevent him from absconding. However, the Court found this justification unconvincing, particularly in light of the petitioner’s prior compliance with legal requirements.

Judgement:

Justice Subba Reddy Satti, while analyzing the legality of the LOC, underscored that an LOC is a coercive instrument with severe civil consequences, as it compels an individual to surrender and restricts personal liberty. The Court observed that such measures must not be implemented mechanically or as a routine procedure. It reiterated that authorities must evaluate each case on its own merits before resorting to an LOC. The Court noted that in this case, the petitioner had already complied with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and had provided sureties. Therefore, invoking an LOC was both unwarranted and excessive. The judgment emphasized that an individual should not be subjected to unnecessary hardships when alternative legal mechanisms exist to ensure compliance with investigations. Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed by the arbitrary issuance of the LOC. The Court ruled that such actions undermine the principles of due process and procedural fairness. Accordingly, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, to withdraw the LOC issued on 17.09.2024 in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024, thereby restoring the petitioner’s freedom of movement. The judgment serves as a crucial precedent in reinforcing the principle that coercive measures like LOCs must be issued only after careful consideration and must not be misused to harass individuals.