APHC010458142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25025/2026 Between: 1. ARAVA BHANUBEE, W/O ABDUL RAHEEM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER R/O 05-45, BLOCK 103, TAMPINESS STREET-11 SINGAPORE-520103 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 4-60, TEKYALA STREET, NEAR OLD MASJID PEDDAMUDIAM VILLAGE, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT- 516411. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522503 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 522101 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLURU POLICE STATION BAPATLA DISTRICT.522101 5. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA) NEW DELHI. 110001 2 6. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA) IMMIGRATION SECTION HALL NO.18, II FLOOR, MDCN STADIUM, INDIA GATE, NEW DELHI.110001 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toissue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature 'Writ of Madamus, declare the proceedings pertaining to the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, malafide, and violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to obstruct or restrain the Petitioner from travelling within or outside India, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner in connection with Crime No.162 of 2024 on the file of Kolluru Police Station, Bapatla District, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Questioning the proceedings pertaining to the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.162 of 2024 on the file of Kolluru Police Station, Bapatla District, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Rama Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sridhar Thummalapudi, learned Central Government Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department for the respondents. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that crime No.162 of 2024 on the file of Kolluru Police Station, Bapatla District, has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000- 2008, in connection with the same, LOC has been issued against her. He further submitted that the petitioner made an application in grievance cell vide grievance No.BPT202608101297 dated 10.08.2026 requesting the 3rd respondent to recall the L.O.C. issued against her and the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent duly stating that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has to approach the competent Court. He further 4 submitted the order impugned is bereft of reasons and without application of mind, as such, the said action of the respondent is illegal and contrary to law, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that the impugned order is only the status of the grievance application made by the petitioner, however, a reasoned order dated 26.08.2026 has been passed by the respondents duly stating that charge sheet has been and the petitioner has to approach the competent Court, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that Crime No.162 of 2024 was registered on the file of Kolluru Police Station, Bapatla District, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. It is also not in dispute that the respondent authorities issued LOC against the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid crime has been registered against her and that she was not cooperating with the investigation. 5 7. Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused, not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued. In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Sections 196, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 and the offences are not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad, by virtue of opening LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the 6 offence under Sections 196, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000- 2008, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect her life. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent rejected her application made through grievance cell without any reasons and simply relegating her to approach the concerned Court. 9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has categorically held that „Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1 observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree2, it was observed “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. 10. Even otherwise, the guidelines of the Look Out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OMNo.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt) 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 1 [1971] 1 All E.R. 1148 2 (1974) ICR 120 NIRC 7 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. 11. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is that the order which is now questioned in the writ petition is only the status of the application made by the petitioner, but reasoned order dated 26.08.2026 has been passed and the same has been placed on record across the bench duly serving a copy of the same on the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 12. A perusal of the said order would go to show that a direction was given to the petitioner asking her to approach the concerned Court and obtain an order to lift the LOC. In the firm opinion of this Court, simply relegating the petitioner to approach the concerned Court to lift LOC is not proper. The originating authority has to independently apply its mind and take a decision independently by taking into consideration the law on hand and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and pass a reasoned order. The same is lacking in the present case. 13. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a charge sheet has been filed. No doubt once a charge sheet has been filed, the parties should invariably cooperate with the trial. Admittedly, the 8 petitioner is a resident of Singapore. In any event if she leaves the country there is every likelihood of evading the Court proceedings. 14. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner‟s son is suffering with Secondary Bacterial Infection and he is in serious condition, as such, in the meantime petitioner may be permitted to go to Singapore and return back within a period of two weeks. 15. In the said circumstances, keeping the interest of both the parties, taking the submissions of the learned senior counsel into consideration, on humanitarian grounds, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: i. The LOC issued against the petitioner shall stand suspended for a period of four (04) weeks. ii. The petitioner is permitted to leave abroad after duly furnishing all the particulars before the Investigating Agency specifying travel itinerary, contact details abroad, residential address in Singapore, passport particulars, e-mail particulars and all other particulars which are required for her presence. iii. As and when the petitioner comes to India within a period of four (04) weeks she shall move an appropriate application before the 9 concerned Court where criminal case is pending against her to lift the LOC. iv. The petitioner shall report the Investigating Agency in India as and when she comes back.” 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 24th September, 2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 25.09.2026 B/o RKS