IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV^[fr^, ^pecial Original Jurisdiction) MONDA'^, THE TWEKITY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1994 OF 2024 Between: Yellapu (Nimmadala) Sadhana, W/o Yellapu Mani Kumar, aged 30 years, working as a dental doctor by profession, presently residing in London, represented by her General Power of Attorney holder Nimmadala Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Late Satyanarayana, aged 62 years, R/o Atcherla, kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam Police Station 2. The Inspector of Police, Bheeminupatnam 3. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 5. The Assistant Director, Bureau of Immigration, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad . " ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in orally instructing the Immigration Authorities at the airports to look out for the petitioner and to detain her without there being any lawful authority to them and without issuing any instruction in writing either to the immigration authorities or at least intimating the petitioner as to on which allegation and on which authority she is being detained in the airports and in refusing to give any copies of any such proceedings issued to look out for the petitioner at the airport as illegal, arbitrary, unjust against the Fundamental Rights of the" petitioner and to consequently direct the respondents to immediately with dravy any such oral or written instructions if any given to Immigration Authorities^ at the airports in India to look out for the petitioner and to detain her and to inform the same in writing the petitioner enabling her to have a free movement to India. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 issue an Interim direction against the respondents to immediately Issue a written communication to the Immigration Authorities in Indian Airports particularly to the Immigration Authorities at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Hyderabad not to detain her^offTconnection with any instructions given by the respondents during the pendency of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1994 of 2024 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s “ to issue any appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in orally instructing the Immigration Authorities at the airports to look out for the petitioner and to detain her without there being any lawful authority to them and without issuing any instruction in writing either to the immigration authorities or at least intimating the petitioner as to on which allegation and on which authority she is being detained in the airports and in refusing to give any copies of any such proceedings issued to look out for the petitioner at the airport as illegal, arbitrary, unjust against the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner and to consequently direct the respondent to immediately with draw any such oral or written instructions if any given to the Immigration Authorities at the airports in India tto look out for the petitioner and to detain her and to inform the same in writing the petitioner enabling her to have a free movement to India and to pass such other and further orders ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in orally instructing the immigration Authorities at the Airports to look out for the petitioner and to detain her without there being any lawful authority to them and without issuing any instruction in writing either to the immigration authorities or at least intimating the petitioner as to on which allegation and on which authority she is being detained in the airports and in refusing to give any copies of any such proceedings issued to look out for the petitioner and to consequently direct the respondents to immediately with draw any such oral or written instructions if any given to the Immigration Authorities at the airports in India. 3. According to the written instructions provided by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court the case of police that on 24.11,2019 at 13.00 hrs, one Ayapilla Srinivas resident of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam reported that a plot admeasuring 600 sq. yards found for sale in Eenadu newspaper and contacted Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao. The shown by Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, which is having boundary wall North and South sides and as per the document the plot belongs to Mrs. Y. Sadana, and he said that Mrs. Y. Sadana is his partner in their combined business. M. Srinivasa Rao was asked to lay the stones in the plot as no boundary walls towards East and summarizes same was on 3 West sides, before registration. Mr. Ayapilla Srinivas was paid sale consideration in favour of M. Srinivasa Rao and Y. Sadana. On 31.08.2018, Y. Sadana could not attend for registration and Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao convinced that she could not come as trains were cancelled due to heavy rains. Thereafter, registration was done on 14.09.2018 to A. Laxmi, GPA Holder, without laying the stones on east and west sides. Then, Mr. Ayapilla Srinivas got suspicious on the registration and get the measurements done and noticed the width (north-South) is 54 feet instead of 60 feet. Upon asking the same, Mr. M. Srinivas Rao signed MOU to refund the received amount within six months from the date of MOU and failed to pay. 4. In this context, the police during the course of investigation arrested the accused No. 1 M. Srinivasa Rao on 08.12.2019 and sent for remand. Since, the time of registration of FIR, the accused A-2 Yellapu (Nimmadala) Sadhana was in absconding. LOG was opened against the Accused No.2 Sadana vide LOG suspect No.2046960 to 204696 of No. 1/SIG(AGK)/LOG/2020- 4491 Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India. Upon her arrival in India at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport following the death of her father-in-law, the police initially detained the petitioner. However, after negotiations, I $ 4 she was released. Subsequently, the police served her a notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which she complied by attending at the police station. Once again, the writ petitioner attended her father-in-law's funeral, the same situation was occurred. Aggrieved by the act of the police in issuing lookout notice 5. against the writ petitioner the present writ petition is filed on the following ground; What procedure is required to be followed by the Investigating agency before opening a Look Out Circular?’ When the accused is intentionally avoiding arrest or failing 6. to appear in court despite Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) and other enforcement measures in cognizable offenses under the Indian Penal Code or other penal laws access to a Look Out Circular (LOC) can be sought by investigating agencies, when there is a risk that the accused may flee the country to avoid trial or arrest. B. The Investigating Officer is required to submit a written request for the LOC to the designated officer, as specified by the Ministry of Home Affairs circular, detailing the 5 % reasons for the request. Only the authorized officer has the authority to issue directives for the LOG by formal order. C. The individual subject to the LOG must participate in the investigation by either appearing before the Investigating Gfficer, surrendering to the relevant court, or demonstrating to the court that the LGC was improperly issued against them. They may also approach the officer responsible for the LGC issuance to clarify that it was wrongly issued. The LGC can be revoked by the issuing authority and can also be annulled by the trial court handling the case or having jurisdiction over the relevant police station, upon request by the individual affected. D. The LGC serves as a coercive measure to compel an individual to submit to law enforcement or the court. The subordinate courts have the same jurisdiction to affirm or cancel LGCs as they do for NBWs, reflecting their authority in matters concerning the cancellation or affirmation of NBWs. 7. The writ petitioner is specifically contesting her detention, which occurred without the proper legal procedure and without any authority, as the particulars of the Lookout notice and the 6 V suspect number were not provided. Accordingly, she has requested that the lookout notice be overturned. 8. In the written instructions provided by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the reasons for the lookout notice has been clearly outlined and the suspect number was provided. Under the circumstances, this Court directs the Writ Petitioner, noting that the police have already issued a 41.A CrI.P.C. notice to her, and she has complied by appearing before the police as required. The Court is of the opinion that the purpose of the lookout notice has been fulfilled accordingly. 9. Therefore, the petitioner is now directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court for the cancellation of the Lookout notice in the case pending or within the jurisdiction of the appropriate police station. The concerned authority is directed to review and issue a suitable order on the application submitted by the writ petitioner for the cancellation of the lookout notice. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is closed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shali stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri G Rama Krishna Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:28/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.1994 of 2024 2 5 JUL 2025 o\ istuirmtSMliooX!^ CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS