APHC010237202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12226/2025 Between: Yannapu Enoch, ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.6 in issuing Look-out Circular against the petitioner in pursuance of Cr.No.64 of 2022 of Biccavole Police Station dated 12.03.2022 and continuing the same, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri T. Praveen, learned counsel representing Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor SRS,J W.P.No.12226 of 2025 General appeared for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeared for respondents 3 to 7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, after completion of Masters, secured a job in USA. The petitioner married one Yannapu Sushma on 20.04.2021. Due to marital disputes, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.64 of 2022 of Biccavole Police Station on 12.03.2022. The petitioner came down to India on 10.01.2025. The immigration authority, due to issuance of Look-out circular, handed over the petitioner to Meenambakam Police Station. Thereafter, a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was served on the petitioner on 10.01.2025 by Biccavole PS. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner is not aware of the issuance of Look-out circular and, in fact, the petitioner cooperated with investigation. 4. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions would submit that respondent No.7 filed final report before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi on 18.01.2025. He would also submit that, as the whereabouts are not known, a Look-out circular has been issued. Consideration: 5. In Avinash Reddy Paladugu v. Bureau of Immigration (BOI), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others1, the learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court, considered issuance of Look-Out Circular vis-à-vis a crime registered under Section 498A IPC. 6. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi2, 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 1 2024 (4) ALD 145 2 (2013) 15 SCC 570 SRS,J W.P.No.12226 of 2025 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 another3 and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others4, to the proposition that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 7. In E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy v. State5, the Madras High Court while setting aside the Look-out Circular, observed as under: "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 MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA[AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon'ble Supreme Court WP_515_2024 SN,J upheld the constitutional right of persons to go abroad. The phrase no one shall be deprived of his "life and liberty" except procedure established by law employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental right and human right. MENAKA GANTHI (supra) ushered a new era in the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'. 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 anti-social 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 harmonius way out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the society/state. 3 AIR 1978 SC 597 4 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 5 2013 SCC Online Mad.4092 SRS,J W.P.No.12226 of 2025 But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.” 8. Eventually, a direction was issued to the petitioner to withdraw the Look-Out Circular, forthwith. 9. A Look-Out Circular, issued, cannot be cancelled unless the originator withdraws the Look-Out Circular. The guidelines on the Look-Out Circular were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021. 10. 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 and that no Look- Out Circular shall be deleted automatically. Indeed, clause J also casts an obligation on the originating agency to review the Look-Out Circular on a quarterly/annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same. 11. 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 person is allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time. 12. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the case registered against the petitioner is under Sections 498-A, 354A1(i), 354-A1(ii) of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The instructions mentioned in Sub-para L of the circular, the case hand, may not warrant issuance of LOC. By the date of registering the crime, the petitioner resides in USA and thus the petitioner may SRS,J W.P.No.12226 of 2025 not be aware of the issuance of the Look-Out Circular. The authority, in the considered opinion of this court, shall apply its thoughts to the facts of each case before issuing LOC. A Look-Out Circular which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interfere with his right to personal liberty and free movement certainly has adverse civil consequences. 13. In the case at hand, the police already issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner and, cooperated with the investigation. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted. 14. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent No.7 shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.64 of 2022 on 12.03.2022 of Biccavole Police Station, East Godavari District, forthwith. If the petitioner intends to move out of India, the petitioner shall get permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 08.05.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.12226 of 2025 148 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.12226 OF 2025 Date : 08.05.2025 TVN