$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11367/2021,CM APPL. 30329/2022, CM APPL. 34662/2022 and CM APPL. 51103/2025 SURENDER KUMAR BANSAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, and Mr. Sanidhya Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Santosh Kumar Rout SC for R-7 Central Bank of India. Mr atul guleria SPP CBI , Mr aryan rakesh Adv , Ms atreyi chatterjee advocates for CBI. Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari CGSC with Ms Samiksha, Advocates for BOI. Kush Sharma (SC); Nishchaya Nigam; Niharika Tanwar; Disha Sharma Advocates for BOB Mr Zoheb Hossain Spl Counsel for DoE Mr Vivek Gurnani panel Counsel for DoE Mr kartik sabharwal adv Mr Kanishk Maurya Adv Mr Pranjal Tripathi advocates for DOE. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 21.01.2026 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the quashing/setting aside of the Look Out Circulars (‘LOCs’) issued against the petitioners. For the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2026 at 12:29:43 sake of clarity, the prayers made are extracted as under:- “(a) Pass a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing/ setting aside the Look Out Circulars (“LOC”) issued against the Petitioners, namely Surender Kumar Bansal (Indian Passport No. Z5532553), and Shefali Bansal (Indian Passport No. L7549762); (b) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. The petitioner submits that they were the Directors of SSK Trading Private Limited. The said company was, in June 2014, declared as Non- Performing Asset (‘NPA’), and, in April, 2018 the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) conducted a raid. 3. It appears that after filing of the petition in the year 2021, various developments have taken place. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners were, earlier, granted liberty to travel abroad at least on four (4) occasions. The date of the order, duration of travel and the country to which travel was allowed, are extracted as under:- S. NO. Order date Place Duration 1. 08.10.2021 U.K. 2 weeks 2. 13.06.2022 Scotland & U.K. (but could not travel due to monetary constraints in arranging FD) 4 weeks 3. 10.01.2024 UAE 16.01.2024 to 28.01.2024 4. 19.05.2025 U.K. 4 weeks 4. There has not been a single instance of the petitioners misusing the liberty granted to them by the Court. It also appears that during the pendency of the petition, the investigation qua the case registered against the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2026 at 12:29:43 petitioners has been completed and charge sheet has been filed before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Trial also remains pending. 5. Today, if the petitioners intend to travel further, they will have to obtain the requisite permission from the court ceased of the matter/proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners also undertake that they shall not travel abroad, unless, the Court concerned specifically grants them such a permission. 6. The Court in the case of Anant Raj Kanoria vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) 3313/2023 vide order dated 09.01.2026 has considered the issue of the justifiability of continued LOCs, and found that the continued restraint imposed upon an individual by way of an LOC operates as an unwarranted restriction on his personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the instant case, the Court finds that the purpose of opening of the LOC has been fully served. The petitioners have sufficient movable and immovable properties in India. Some of the properties of the petitioners have already been attached by the Investigating Agency. 8. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the LOC opened against the petitioners deserves to be set aside with the following directions:- (i) The petitioners shall file an affidavit before the Trial Court affirming that they shall fully co-operate with the trial; (ii) The petitioners shall not travel abroad without the permission of the Trial Court; (iii) Liberty is granted to the respondent nos.3 to 5 and 8 to re-open the LOC, in case they find that the petitioners are violating any of the terms, conditions or directions by the Investigating Agency. This is a digitally signed order. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2026 at 12:29:43 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 21, 2026 Nc/ ksr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2026 at 12:29:43