IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i?io THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12682 OF 2025 Between: Konkipudi Satish, S/o Govinda Rao, Age 42 years Palteru Village Payakaraopeta Mandal Visakhapatnam District ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by its Commissioner, (Immigration), East Block - VIII ’ Level V, Sector 1, R.K. Purarn, New Delhi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Home, Secretariat, Amaravati. 3. The Director General of Police, DGP Office Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhaptnam, Commissionerat. 5. The SHO, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue order, writ or direction more particularly nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents i issuing LOC (Look Out Circular) against the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, without authority and contrary to law and Respondents to withdraw the LOC issued against the Petitioner and to permit the petitioner to travel to Germany for the purpose of his job. the High Court may one in the in consequentially direct the 7/ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ■ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the LOC (Look Out Circular) by directing Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to travel to Germany for the purpose of his job pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: the ^ * A ' if' ^ APHC010254252025 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: 12682/2025 Between: Konkipudi Satish, ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: I.RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU 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 the respondents in issuing Look Out Circular (LOG) against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, LOG was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner, presently working in Germany, at Yorckstr, came to India on 09.03.2025. On 11.04.2025, when \ the petitioner commenced the return journey, he was stopped at Bangalore International Airport. The petitioner’s passport was seized and handed over to 2. \ V W.P.No.12682 respondent No.5. Notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS was served on the petitioner on 07.05.2025. Heard Sri Rambabu Devarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 2 to 5. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that issuing and continuing the LOC against the petitioner, even though the petitioner cooperated with the investigation, deprives the rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when the authorities seized the passport, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11711 of 2025 and the same was disposed of on 07.05.2025, directing the Station House Officer to return the passport in seven days. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that due to registration of a case in crime No.326 of 2024, LOC was issued against the petitioner. He would submit that a final report was filed on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1315 of 2025. r' o. Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, would submit that if the originating authority withdraws the Look-Out Circular, the authority will abide by the same. 6. CONSIDERATION: In Avinash Reddy Paladugu Vs. Bureau of Immigration (BOI), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of 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 I PC. 7. 1 2024 (4) ALD 145 /age 3 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.12682 of 2025 The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sumit Mehta Vs. 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 Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another^ and Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others'*, to the proposition that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 8. In E.V.Perumal Sarny Reddy vs. State®, the Madras High Court while setting aside an LOC, obsepyed as under: 9. "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'. 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 10. ^(2013) 15 see 570 AIR 1978 Se 597 ^ 2019(2) see Online Se 2048 ^2013 see Online Mad.4092 3 society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair.and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.” Eventually, a direction was issued to the petitioner to withdraw the ook-Out Circular forthwith. 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-lmm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021. 10. 11. 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. 12 Sub-Para L of the circular dt.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 mav 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, (emphasis added) •>, In the case at hand, as observed supra, the case registered against the petitioner is under Sections 85 & 82 of the BNS Act, 2023. The instructions mentioned in Sub-Para L of the circular, the case hand may not warrant the issuance of LOC.. By the date of registering the crime, the petitioner resides abroad, and thus the petitioner may not be aware of the issuance of the Look- 13. 6 SRSJ W.P.No.12682 of 2025 Out Circular. 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 have already served notice under Section \ 1^5(3) of BNSS. The petitioner, in fact, cooperated with the investigation. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted. \ Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. The Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner, in connection with Cr.No.326 of 2024 of Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall co-operate with the prosecution for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. 15. Since a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, as referred to supra, if the petitioner intends to move out of India, the petitioner shall get permission from the jurisdictional Court. Given the same, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the jurisdictional court. If such an application is filed, the learned Judge shall consider and appropriate orders, strictly as per the Law, immediately. No costs. 16. pass As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SURYANADHA REDDY ^^^STRAR SECTION OFFICER DEPU //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Commissioner, (Immigration), Union of India, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs, East Block - VIII. Level V, Sector 1, R.K. Purarn, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Secretariat, Amaravati. 3. The Director General of Police, DGP Office Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhaptnam, Commissionerat. 5. The SHO, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District 6. One CC to Sri Ram Babu Devavarapu, Advocate [OPUC] [OPUC^ Deputy Solicitor General of Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Two CD Copies India 8. Pradesh. [OUT] 9. RAM . \ 1 \ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12682 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS