1 APHC010120662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 6461/2026 Between: 1. BIKKINA KONDAL RAO, , S/O BIKKINA RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, GLOBAL CIO, M/S SAUTHRIKA TECHNOLOGIES AND INFRA PVT. LTD, R/O FLAT NO. 102, LAKE VIEW CONDOMINIUM, LAKE VIEW PARK, PUPPALGUDA, RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA- 500075. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRSJAISALMER HOUSE, 26 MANSINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI. 110001 2. THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, EAST BLOCK- VIII, LEVEL-V, SECTOR-1, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI- 110066. 3. THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REP BY THE FRRO, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL BOL OFFICE, NEAR CISF QUARTERS, MAMIDIPALLY,SHAMSHABAD, HYDERABAD.- 500005 4. ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ACB, CIU, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - ...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 2 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Look-Out Circular (LoC) vide Ref. No. 2025/2729/009936, dated 26.09.2025, notifying the Petitioner as an accused whose presence is required for the originating agency or competent court, Despite the Petitioner herein having been released on Regular Bail and the Passport of the Petitioner herein bearing No.Z6090481 having been Deposited before the Competent Court, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreign Division), No. 25016/31/2010-lmm, Consequently set aside the said Look-Out Circular vide Ref. No. 2025/2729/009936, dated 26.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2, to the extent of the Petitioner and Pass 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Look-Out Circular (LoC) vide Ref. No. 2025/2729/009936, dated 26.09.2025 issued by Respondent No.2, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB 2. The Court made the following: 3 O R D E R The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the Look-Out Circular (LoC) vide Ref. No.2025/2729/009936, dated 26.09.2025, notifying the Petitioner as an accused whose presence is required for the originating agency or Competent Court, despite the Petitioner herein having been released on Regular Bail and the Passport of the Petitioner herein bearing No.Z6090481 having been deposited before the Competent Court, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the Office Memorandum No.25016/31/2010-lmm, dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreign Division), and consequently set aside the said Look-Out Circular dated 26.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 to the extent of the Petitioner. 2. (a) It is the case of petitioner that he is an Engineering Graduate and has completed his masters from esteemed Universities in England. Thereafter, he relocated to India and was employed with M/s. Matrix Security and Surveillance. He was also holding controlling shareholding in another company by name M/s.Kritvyap Technologies, and over the years, became Global CIO of M/s.Sauthrika Technologies. While so, the office of the Director General, Diasaster Response and Fire Services issued a tender through e-procurement system vide Tender Notification C.No.0000/APDRFS/AP/2022-23, dated 09.01.2023 for Development, Maintenance of AGNI-NOC Web Portal and Mobile App along with supply of 4 hardware. The petitioner’s company emerged as a successful bidder in the said tender for an amount of Rs.2,29,61,000/- for a period of five years. Due to changes in requirements and for getting instructions from the office of the Director General, the execution of the work was delayed. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued and subsequently, a case in Crime No.05/RCO-CIU-ACB of 2024, dated 24.12.2024 was registered by ACB, CIU, Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477A r/w.120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1) (a) r/w Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 raising various allegations. (b) While the things stood thus, the petitioner herein was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023; the petitioner had attended the enquiry and cooperated with the enquiry conducted by the police officials. The petitioner was arrested on 18.11.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 19.11.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on regular bail vide order, dated 15.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2093 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-III ADJ, Vijayawada and the learned trial Court had imposed various conditions on the petitioner including the deposit of passport and a requirement to obtain prior permission from the Hon’ble Court before any travel. (c) The petitioner has been scrupulously following the said conditions and as he intended to travel abroad on a business trip, he approached the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases and preferred Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2026 5 seeking permission to travel abroad from 30.01.2026 to 09.02.2026 by relaxing the bail condition of weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer. The learned Judge, after consideration had allowed the petition, vide order, dated 22.01.2026 and also directed that the passport of the petitioner be resubmitted upon return to India. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that Respondent No.4 requested the opening of Regular LOC No.2025437153, pursuant to which Respondent No.2 issued the impugned Loc vide Ref.No.2025/2729/009936, dated 26.09.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned LOC, dated 26.09.2025 was issued without furnishing any prior notice or communication to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been diligently cooperating with the investigation and is presently on bail. He further submits that the passport of the petitioner has been deposited before the Court in compliance with the bail conditions. It is contended that even assuming, without admitting, that the Look Out Circular was initially issued prior to the arrest to the petitioner, the continuance of the same after the petitioner’s arrest, grant of regular bail and deposit of passport before the competent Court is illegal and arbitrary. 6 4. 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 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.” 5. He also placed reliance on a decision in Mannoj Kumar Jain & another v. Union of India & others2, wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 20, 21 and 22). 1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022. 7 “20. Apart from the reach of Look Out Circulars to cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of movement, Look Out Circulars have an inexplicably long shelf-life. Sub-paragraph J of the OM dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a LOC shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the originator and that no LOC shall be deleted automatically. Although these clauses cast an obligation on the originating agency to review the LOC on a quarterly / annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same, this is sadly found to be absent in most cases. Once a Look Out Circular is issued, it remains alive and kicking for almost all times to come. This spells dangerous repercussions on the person's right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile. The Banks have been given untrammelled powers to issue, use and exploit the lock-in power of a Look Out Circular without sufficient recourse being provided in law to the person at the receiving end of it. The expressions "... detrimental... to the economic interest of India" in the concerned OM is sufficient to sharpen the talons of a vindictive Bank to clip the wings of a vulnerable prey (in the metaphoric sense). The Writ Court hence can and should step in to check such unregulated abuse of power by Banks where the facts demand relief. 21. In view of the above reasons, the respondent No.8 Indian Overseas Bank cannot have any continuing reason to interfere with the petitioners' travel outside the country. The interference sought to be imposed by way of the Look Out Circular is arbitrary and without any rational basis. The CBI Courts, where the cases are pending, are free to pass orders or impose conditions as the Courts may deem fit. The petitioners have not claimed any reliefs against those proceedings in the writ petition. This Court however sees no reason to allow the impugned Look Out Circular to remain or be used against the petitioners in the absence of any acceptable apprehension, let alone evidence, shown on behalf of the Bank. 2 Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.22748 of 2022. 8 22. WPA 22748 of 2022 is accordingly allowed by quashing the impugned Look Out Circular issued by the respondent No.8 Bank. The respondent No.8 and the other respondents shall not continue to give any further effect to the Look Out Circular which would have the effect of preventing the petitioners to travel outside India. The writ petition and all connected applications are disposed of accordingly.” 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that if the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioner avoiding judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner was released on regular bail vide order, dated 15.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2093 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, with certain conditions. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2026 seeking permission to travel abroad from 30.01.2026 to 09.02.2026 by relaxing the bail condition of weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer and the said petition was allowed, vide order, dated 22.01.2026 directing that the passport of the petitioner herein be resubmitted upon his return to India. 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 police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial in a criminal case. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered, it has 9 become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioners are cooperating with the trial or they are evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. Admittedly, the petitioner has been released on regular bail in the aforesaid crime. He is complying with the conditions imposed at the time of granting the bail. He was also permitted to travel abroad by the learned Special Judge by relaxing the bail conditions. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has to travel abroad in connection with this business. If the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad by virtue of opening LOC against him he 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. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid precedents, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. 10 JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 12.03.2026 TM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 6461/2026 12.03.2026 11 TM