IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10982 OF 2025 Between; Pottipati Pavan Kumar, S/o. Pottipati Rajagopal Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Pvt. Service R/o. H.No.7-316-A, New Krishna Nagar Kodur, YSR Kadapa District. ^ ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram, Anantapuramu District. 3. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station Anantapuram, Anantapuramu District. 4. The Bureau of Immigration, Union of India New Delhi Rept. By its Immigration Commissioner. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Lookout Circular (LOC) against the petitioner in Cr.No.26/2025 on the file of the 3^*^ respondent police station preventing the petitioner to go to Kuwait as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to recall the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner and permit the petitioner to travel to Kuwait in the interest of justice. in lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to travel to Kuwait by suspending the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI M. SRINIVAS The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER APHC010220802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10982/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Pottipati Pavan Kumar AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel for 4^*^ respondent. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in issuing the Lookout Circular (LOG) against the petitioner in Cr.No.26/2025 of II Town Police Station, Annatapuram, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working in Kuwait for 20 years. A case in Crime No.26 / 2025 has been registered by the 3’’^ respondent against the petitioner’s sister, brother-in-law and others. The petitioner is shown as accused No.3 in the aforementioned crime. The petitioner came to India on 22.02.2025 and booked a ticket to travel to Kuwait on 22.04.2025. However, when he reached Hyderabad Airport, the Immigration Department stopped him due to the Lookout Circular issued by the 2^^ respondent. The 3^^ respondent thereafter, issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and obtained signatures of the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitionermust reach Kuwait on or before 29.04.2025 due to his employment. Learned counsel would submit that, since a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS has been issued to the petitioner, the continuation of the LOC is impermissible. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand on the instructions, would submit that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating agency and petitioner did not produce bank statement. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court or Officer to recall the above LOC. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the 2'^^ respondent-The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram, the originating authority. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2^^ respondent - The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram District, who issued LOC, and file an appropriate application. If the petitioner makes such an application, learned 6. 3 ^ * 2'^^ respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within one (1) week thereafter, strictly, as per the law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram, Anantapuramu District 3. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station Anantapuram Anantapuramu District 4. The Immigration Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration, Union of India New Delhi. 5. One CC to Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri M. Srinivas, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Three C.D.,Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10982 of 2025 I 0 I MAY 2025 ^ . Current Section , DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS