APHC010004292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 500/2026 Between: 1. KORAMUTLA SAI KRISHNA @ SAI, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. SELF CO-ORDINATOR SAI EVENT COMPANY FOR WEDDING PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, R/ O D. BOYANAPALLI VILLAGE, RAJAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT HAWALLY, BLOCK 10, STREET 215, FLOOR .3, FLAT.NO. 7, KUWAIT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI-110001. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522302. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY, ANDHRA PRADESH-516269. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAMPET URBAN POLICE STATION, RAJAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT-516115. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.500 of 2026 Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer; “….pleased to issue an order or orders or direction or an appropriate writ more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the. action of respondents more particularly 4 to 6 in issuing and continuing Look Out Circular (LOC) bearing No. 2025436336 dated 20.09.2025, despite subsisting interim orders of this Hon'ble Court in Crlp.No.6788 of 2024, Dt.13.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, to call for records and to quash the Look Out Circular (LOC) bearing No. 2025436336 dated 20.09.2025….” 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that he is eking out his livelihood by doing business of wedding designing and planning in Kuwait and Dubai for more than 10 years, and he entered into wedding contracts throughout the year. The petitioner has two children, namely, Koushik Krishna and Kushal Krishna, aged about 13 years and 10 years respectively, who are residing in Kuwait and pursuing their studies in Classes VI and V in Jabriya Indian School, Jabriya, Kuwait. While the matter stood thus, the SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 3 petitioner was shown as Accused No.5 in Crime No.22 of 2017 of Rajampet Urban Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 120-B and 366-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. At the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was residing abroad. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that he is alleged to have provided financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/- to Accused No.1. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein filed Crl.P.No.6788 of 2024 seeking quashment of the said Crime No.22 of 2017. By an order dated 13.03.2025, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings insofar as the petitioner/A5 is concerned in Crime No.22 of 2017 of Rajampet Urban Police Station, Kadapa District. In the said order, this Court categorically held that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC, as, during the relevant period, the petitioner was residing in Dubai and had been working there for several years, and apart from the above, the accusations are primarily directed against Accused No.1. A2, A3 and another forcibly performed marriage of A1 with the victim, i.e. S.C.No.49 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Except the allegation that the SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 4 petitioner is said to have provided financial assistance to Accused No.1, there is absolutely no other material to connect the petitioner with the said crime. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the Station House Officer sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police requesting issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner, being unaware of the order passed by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the immigration authorities handed over the petitioner to the respondent-police on 29.09.2025. When the respondent-police apprehended the petitioner herein, the petitioner produced a copy of the order passed by this Court. On coming to know the same, the police immediately released the petitioner. The respondent- police further stated that the LOC was applied for without knowledge of the status of the order passed by this Court, and as soon as the petitioner produced the order copy showing that the entire proceedings had been stayed insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he was released forthwith. 5. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan Vs Assistant SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 5 Director’s case in W.P.(Crl.) No.1315 of 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2006, High Court of Delhi held that LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and if there is any likelihood of accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest and only in those circumstances, LOC can be opened as against the accused therein. It is trite that the recourse can be had for issue of LOC by the police only in drastic contingencies. Without there being any proper procedure followed, coming to conclusion to issue LOC, is bad. It is not that the accused are not cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest. 6. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another1, wherein it was held thus (paragraphs 11 and 12). “11. In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is 1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022 SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 6 deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC. 12. The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed. However, a balance has to be struck qua the right of the investigation agency to investigate the instant matter as well as the fundamental right of the petitioner of movement and free speech.” 7. By virtue of opening the LOC, the 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. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 7 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 for 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 petitioner herein is Accused No.5, and the allegation against him is that he provided financial assistance to Accused No.1 and arranged a house for Accused No.1. When the petitioner is carrying on his business abroad for his livelihood, by virtue of the opening of a Look Out Circular (LOC), there is every likelihood that 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 personal liberty of the person would be affected. By virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, it will be a hurdle for the petitioner herein to travel abroad. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in Sumer Singh Saikan’s case stated supra, wherein it was held thus. SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 8 “In the present case, the LOC was issued against the petitioner soon after the registration of FIR. It is alleged by the petitioner that LOC was issued in view of the fact that complainant’s close relative was an IPS officer. This allegation of the petitioner finds support from the fact that the punishment WP (Crl.) No. 1315 of 2008 & Crl. R. No. 1 of 2006 Page 13 of 16 stated by the police to Interpol in respect of the offences committed has been deliberately given as 10 years while the prescribed punishment is maximum 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner’s description of being ‘violent and dangerous’ also has been added malafidly, with ulterior motive, in view of the fact that allegations against petitioner were of only of emotional torture. Offence of kidnapping was given as the reasons for issuance of RCN, which on the representation of petitioner was removed. It is apparent that the LOC & RCN were issued for extraneous reasons by an officer who was not authorized. The petitioner has also highlighted the difference in statements made by witnesses on different occasions. Since the matter pertaining to these offences is subjudiced, it will not be appropriate to comment on this aspect but suffice it to say that the action against the petitioner of issuing RCN was uncalled for in view of the fact that neither offence, for which the petitioner is facing trial in India, is an extraditable SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 9 offence, nor any request for extradition of the petitioner has been made for the last 7 years despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for quashing the RCN issued against the petitioner at the behest of Delhi Police. The RCN, is therefore, hereby quashed.” 9. In view of principle laid down in the aforesaid case and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, opening of LOC against the petitioner herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence the LOC issued against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date:19.01.2026 Asr SRK, J WP No.500 of 2026 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.500 of 2026 Date:19.01.2026 Asr