IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 11246 OF ?r)9fi SATTI Between: Sri Kandregula Bhanoj Kumar, S/o. K. Veerabhadra Rao Occupation; Electrician, residing & working resident of D.No 21-185/5, Lane No. 18 Nagar, NAD, Visakhapatnam-530 009. aged 32 years, J permanent Sattamathalli Temple Road, Kakani at Abu Dhabi, UAE and ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Addl. Director General MangalagirSimhapuri Colony, 3. The Commissioner of Police Addl Metropolitan Cit rep., by its Principal secretary Home buildings, Andhra Pradesh secretariat. of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh, District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 4. The Asst. Commissioner Visakhapatnam. 5. The Station of Police, Mahila Police Station’ House Officer Visakhapatnam, Yendada, Visakhapatnam. 6. The Joint Director, Immigratiori Branch Govt, of India, Block No.8, East RK Puram, 7. The Immigration Officer, Bureau Hyderabad Telangana. Mahila Police Station, (IB), Ministry of Home Affairs, . Sector-1, New Delhi-66, of Immigration Department RGI Airport Lavanya, D/o. Muddada Ramarao, R/o.MIG-ll, A-76, Simhachalam, aged about 31 years; Visakhapatnam. Simhapuri Colony % ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i be pleased to i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court issue an appropriate writ, order may or direction more particularly declaring the action of the Srd issuing one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus respondent Look-Out in Circular vide C.NO.9668/C61/IP/SCRB/2024, Crime No.288 of 2023 Dt. 07-12-2024 against me in relation to on the file of Mahila Police Station Visakhapatnam against the principles of natural justice and in is unlawful, arbitrary, unjust. violation of my rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 3rd respondent to withdraw/ cancel the Look-Out Circular vide No. C.No.9668/C61/IP/SCRB/2024 in relation to Crime No.288 of 2023 Visakhapatnam. Dt.07-12-2024 against on the file of Mahila Police Station; me jA NO: 1 OF pn?*; Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances "" of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order suspending the operation of Look-Out Circular vide C.No.9668/C61/IP/SCRB/2024 relation to Crime No.288 , Dt;07-12-2024 against of 2023 on the file of Mahila Visakhapatnam, during the pendency of this Writ Petition. me in Police Station, Counsel for the Petitioner: tJJWALA DEVI representing SRI K S S NARAYANA 1 to 5: GP FOR HOME 6 & 7: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. Respondent Nos. OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010216062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 11246/2n?.^ sfe [3331] SATTI Between: Kandregula Bhanoj Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSSNARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No,3 issuing the Look-Out Circular vide C.No.9668/C61/IP/SCRB/2024 07.12.2024 (Ex.P4) concerning Cr.No.288 i and continuing the same, is illegal and arbitrary. Heard Ms. K. Sri K.S.S.Naryaana, learned in dated of 2023 of Mahila Police Station 2. Ujwala Devi, learned counsel representing counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay, learned 1 SRS,J W.P.No.11246 of 2025 Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondents 1 to 5 and learned Deputy Solicitor General takes notice on behalf of respondents 6 & 7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo vide U.S.R.No.51136 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025, seeking not to press the writ petition against respondent No.8. The said memo is accepted. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed against respondent No.8. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s wife lodged, a complaint against the petitioner and others before the Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.288 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner, due to employment staying in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and was not available in India at the time of registration of the aforementioned crime. Respondent No.5 sent a Section 41- A of Cr.P.C notice to the petitioner through mail. However, the petitioner could not attend. Later, the petitioner came down to India on 24.03.2025 and detained by respondent No.7. The petitioner was handed over to respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 issued Section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to the petitioner, and later, the petitioner got station bail and cooperated with the investigation. 6. —^.Teamed counsel for the petitioner would also submit that continuing the Look-out circular, after the petitioner cooperated with the investigation, is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violates the petitioner’s personal right to travel abroad in connection with employment. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner will cooperate with the police for further investigation, if any. was was Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that in •puriuance of the crime registered against the petitioner and others, since the 7. SRS,J W.P.No.11246 of 2025 petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation, a look-out circular was issued by respondent No.3. He would also submit that the prosecution examined L.Ws.1 to 3. Consideration: In Avinash Reddy Paladugu v. Bureau of Immigration (BOI), Ministry of Home Affairs, Governmentof India, New Delhi and others^ the learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court, considered issuance of Look-Out Circular vis-a-vis a crime registered under Section 498A IPC. 8. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi^, regarding the proposition that the law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and another^ and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others^ to the proposition that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 9. In E.V.Perumal Sarny Reddy v. State®, the Madras High Court while setting aside the Look-out Circular, observed as under; 10. "9. 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]. In the celebrated in 2024 (4) ALD 145 "(2013) 15 see 570 "air 1978 SC 597 "-.2019 (2) see Online SC 2048 '>"-204-3 see Online Mad.4092 I SRS.J W.P.No.11246 of 2025 , MENAKA GANDHI \/s. UNION OF INDIAfAIR Hon'ble Supreme Court WP_515_2024 SN,J upheld the right of persons to go abroad. The phrase no one shall be deprived of his "life and liberty" except procedure established by law Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect human right. MENAKA GANTHI (supra) ushered annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'. 1978 SC 597], the constitutional \ employed in on fundamental right and a new era in the 10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are antisocial elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arose to apprehend persons, who have ability to fly, flee away the country. So, L.O.C. orders are Issued. It Is an harmonies way out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the society/state, reasonable. It should not be But, in any case, it must be fair and indiscriminate without any reason or basis. 11. Eventually, a direction Look-Out Circular, forthwith. was issued to the petitioner to withdraw the 12. A Look-Out Circular, issued cannot be cancelled unless the originator on the Look-Out Circular were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No^25016/10/2017 (pt.) dated 22.02.2021. withdraws the Look-Out Circular. The guidelines -Imm 13. 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 Out-Cifcular shall be deleted and that no Look- automatically. Indeed, clause J also casts an SRS.J W.P.No.11246 of 2025 obligation on the originating agency to review the Look-Out Circular quarterly/annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same. on a Sub-para L of the circular 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 14. person is allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time. 15. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the case registered against the petitioner is under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The instructions mentioned in Sub-para L of the circular, the case hand, may not warrant the issuance of LOO. By the date of registering the crime, the petitioner resides in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and could not attend before the investigating authority due to employment. The authority, in the considered opinion of this court, shall apply its thoughts to the facts of each case before issuing LOG. A Look-Out Circular, which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequently interfere with his right to personal liberty and free movement, certainly has adverse civil consequences. In the case at hand, the police already issued Section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to the petitioner and later the petitioner got station bail and cooperated with the investigation. Issuance of LOG, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted. 16. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued 17.. Page 6 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.11246 of 2025 against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.288 of 2023 on 14.10.2023, Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam, forthwith. If the petitioner intends to move out of India, the petitioner shall make an application before the learned I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. On such a filing, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat buildings, Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. Director General of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh MangalagirSimhapuri Colony, 3. The Commissioner of Police Addl. District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Cit 2. The Addl. 4. The Asst. Visakhapatnam. 5. The Commissioner of Police, Mahila Police Station, Station House Officer, Disha Mahila Visakhapatnam, Yendada, Visakhapatnam. 6. The Joint Director, Immigration Branch (IB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt, of India, Block No.8, East RK Puram, Sector- 1, New Delhi-66. 7. The Immigration Officer, Bureau of Immigration Department RGI Airport Hyderabad Telangana. 8. One CC to Sri K S S Narayana Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 11. Three CD Copies Police Station TF HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11246 of 2025 ^ 0 ii SEP 2025 Jc isCumntSecCoiiX!^ ■''SSSfiUSSSS/ ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS