IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11569 OF 2025 Between: Ravilisetty Venkat Pavan Bhaskar Rao, S/o R.V. Ramana Rao, aged about 40 years, Occ: IT Developer, R/o 9709. George Bush Dr Mckinney, TX, 75072 United States of America. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, represented by secretary. Ministry of home affairs, government of India, South Block, New Delhi 110001. 2. Bureau of immigration. Ministry of home affairs, government of India, represented by Commissidner immigration. East Block - VIII level five sector 1, RK Puram, New Delhi 110066. 3. Bureau of immigration, Ministry of home affairs, government of India, represented by joint director immigration. North Block, New Delhi 11006. 4. Director General of Police, DGP office, sixth battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri town, Guntur district. 5. The foreigners, regional registration officer, FRRO, bureau of immigration, MHA, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, BOL office, nearCISF, residential complex, Mamidipally Road, Mamidipally, Shamshabad Telangana State 6. The Superintendent of police, Palnadu, district, Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Circle Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet, I town. Police Station Palnadu district, Andhra Pradesh. 8. The Station House officer, Narasaraopet ITown Police Station Palnadu district. 9. Garikapati Anusha, D/o.Garikapati Ramana Rao, aged about 39 years Occ: IT Analyst, R/o.10416 Matador Dr. Mckinney, TX. 75072. United States of America. (Deleted) 10.Chowda Kumari Garikipati, W/o. Ramana Rao Garikipati Ajanta , Enclave, Apt 201, Prakash Nagar, 3^^^ lane. Narasaropet Town, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh. (Deleted) (RR 9 & 10 are deleted in Writ petition and affidavit as per Court’s order dt.06.05.2025 in I.A. No.2 of 2025) ...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 a direction or order or writ, more likely one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner by respondents 1 to 8 at the instance of the unofficial respondents 9 and 10 in crime number 35 of 2025 on the file of the Police Station at I town, Narasaraopet as arbitrary, illegal, ultravires, and unconstitutional, and to consequently set aside the same, enabling him to travel. 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 be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 8 to suspend the lookout circular issued at the behest of unofficial respondents being respondents 9 and 10 and permit the petitioner to travel to the United States of America, duly returning the passport of the petitioner. may Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. SRINATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 : SRI Y.V. ANIL KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7 & 8 : SRI P. AJAY BABU, ASST.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010220952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11569/2025 Between: Ravilisetty Venkat Pavan Bhaskar Rao ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SRI NATH 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 Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner by the 6“^ respondent, in pursuance of Crime No.35 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 85 & 79 of BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as ((legal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of\ndia. No.35 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025 for the offences A case in Crime punishable under 2. Section 85 & 79 of BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry registered against the petitioner on 10.03.2025. Prohibition Act, was Thereafter, the 6^^ respondent issued Look-Out Circular against the The petitioner came down to India in February, 2025 from petitioner. USA, and in return, he was stopped at Rajiv Gandhi international Airport Hyderabad on 06.04.2025 due to the Look-Out Circular issued by the 6' respondent. The passport was seized and submitted to the jurisdictional under Section 35 (3) of BNSS was served on the petitioner Court. Notice and the petitioner cooperated for the investigation. learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V.Anil Heard Sri A.Srinath Kumar, learned 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 4, 6 to 8. 3. Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that continuing the Look-Out Circular against the petitioner, even though he cooperated with deprives his rights enshrined under Part-Ill of the the investigation Constitution of India. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that due to the registration of case in Crime No.35 of 2025, issued against the petitioner. He would submit 5. Look-Out Circular was the statements of L.Ws.1 to 8 were 06.04.2025 at Rajiv that during the investigation recorded. The petitioner was apprehended on International Airport, Hyderabad and the Indian passport of the the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gandhi handed over to petitioner was Narsaraopeta. Ws0' 6. Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel would submit that of the originating authority withdraws the Look-Out Circular, the authority will abide by the same. 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 IPC. 7. 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, observed 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 ' 2024 (4) ALD 145 ^(2013) 15 see 570 ^AIR 1978 Se 597 '’2019 (2) see Online Se 2048 ej 2013 see Online Mad.4092 \ 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 society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.” 10. Eventually, a direction was issued to the petitioner to withdraw the Look-Out Circular forthwith. A Look-Out Circular was 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. 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 n'b Look-Out Circular shall be deleted automatically. Indeed, clause J 11. Page 5 of 6 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 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.. any 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 issuance of LOC. By the date of registering the crime, the petitioner resides in USA and thus the petitioner may 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. I 14. In the case at hand, the Police already served notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. The petitioner, in fact, furnished sureties, and cooperated with the investigation. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted. Page 6 of 6 Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the 6" respondent • shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.35 of 2025 datedi0.03.2025 of Narsaraopeta I Town Police Station, forthwith. 15. If the petitioner intends to go out of India, since the aforementioned crime has already been registered, he has to 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 pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Law. 16. 18. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of home affairs, Government of India, South Block, New Delhi 110001. 2. The Commissioner immigration. Bureau of immigration, Ministry of Honie Affairs, Government of India, East Block - VIII, level five sector 1 RK Puram, New Delhi 110066. 3. The Joint Director Immigration, Bureau of immigration. Ministry of home affairs, government of India, North Block, New Delhi 11006. 4. The Director General of Police, DGP office, sixth battalion APSP Mangalagiri town, Guntur district. 5. The foreigners, regional registration officer, FRRO, bureau of immigration,MHA, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, BOL office, near CISF, residential complex, Mamidipally Road, Mamidipally, Shamshabad Telangana State 6. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu, district, Narasaraopet Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Circle Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet, I town. Police Station Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh. 8. The Station House officer, Narasaraopet ITown Police Station Palnadu District. 9. One CC to Sri A. Srinath, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, Central Govt. Counsel [OPUC] 11. Two CC to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 12. Three C.D. Copies; To, f I ^ -V HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 O s 15 MAY 2025 ORDER m; Co WP.No.11569 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS