APHC010641862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 33130/2025 Between: 1. MR. MAKKENA HARI BABU, S/O. MAKKENA VENKAIAH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF M/S B.K. THRESHERS PRIVATE LIMITED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/C. 6-69-2, VISHNALAYAM STREET, TANGUTUR- 523274, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANKING SECURITIES AND FRAUDS BRANCH, 36 BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560032 REP BY DY. INSP. GENERAL OF POLICE. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, ANDHRA BANK BUILDING, SEETHAMADHARA, VISHAKAPATNAM - 530 013 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 2 4. UNION BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, DOOR NO. 26-15-150, ANDHRA BANK BUILDING, CHANGALRAOPETA VISHAKAPATNAM- 530 001 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 5. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, EAST BLOCK-VIII, LEVEL-V, SECTOR-1, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 6. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (MHA), SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL 3OL OCR COMPLEX, SHAMSHABAD - PAHADISHAREEF ROAD, NEAR GMR TOWNSHIP (CISF RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS) MAMIDIPALLY, SHAMSHABAD, TELANGANA-501218 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N JEEVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI 2. Y V ANIL KUMAR SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.33130 of 2025 Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer; “….pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, mope particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not recalling or revoking the Look Out Circular (LOG) issued/opened against the Petitioner Mr. Makkena Hah Babu (Passport No. AA366878), pursuant to FIR No. RC0782021E005 dated 13.12.2021, even after the filing of the Final Report under Section 173 CrPC dated 11.04.2025 and iis submission before the Honble Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada on 17.04.2025 seeking closure of the case, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the Petitioners fundamental rights, contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 oearing Ret.No. 25016/10/2017-imm(Pt.) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and as an abuse of process of law and authority ana consequently, to quash/set aside the Look Out Circular issued against th Petitioner by Respondent Ncs.2 to 4.” 2. Case of the petitioner herein is that he is a citizen of India, holding a valid passport bearing No.AA366878, which is valid up to 13.05.2035. Owing to his business activities, the petitioner is required to frequently travel to various countries and has been granted necessary visas by the respective countries. The SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 4 petitioner was formerly a Director of M/s B.K. Threshers Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the business of threshing and re-drying of tobacco and tobacco exports, and he resigned from the Directorship of the company on 24.02.2023, after which he was no longer associated with its management or operations. The company availed credit facilities amounting to Rs.183.50 crores from Union Bank of India, secured through personal and corporate guarantees as well as mortgage of properties. Due to a downturn in the tobacco sector regulated by the Tobacco Board, the accounts were classified as NPA on 04.03.2018, and a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 29.06.2018. After a forensic audit, the account was reclassified as “fraudulent,” and FIR No. RC782021E00005 was registered on 13.12.2021 against the company and its erstwhile Directors for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to the declaration of the account as fraudulent, the company and its erstwhile Directors challenged the said declaration made by the bank before this Court in W.P. No. 6247 of 2023, and by order dated 15.03.2023, this Court directed the Bank and the CBI not to take any coercive action SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 5 pursuant to the declaration of the company’s account as fraud, and the said Writ Petition is still pending adjudication. As the matter stood thus, Respondent No.2 proceeded with the investigation in FIR No. RC782021E00005 dated 13.12.2021. Upon completion of the investigation, Respondent No.2 filed the Final Report dated 11.04.2025 before the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada, on 17.04.2025, recommending closure of the case on the ground that the offences alleged in the FIR were not supported by prosecutable evidence. According to the petitioner, there is no reasonable justification for respondents 2 to 4 in continuing the LOC, thereby restraining the petitioner from travelling abroad. Moreover, the petitioner has business responsibilities, including engagement with global investors and stakeholders, and it is therefore essential for him to travel abroad frequently. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, by way of a counter, submits that the CBI has filed a Closure Report on 17.04.2025 before the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada, and that the same is presently pending consideration and for appropriate orders of the Court. It is further submitted that SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 6 only after passing of orders on the Closure Report, CBI is able to take a decision regarding the recall of the LOC issued against the petitioner. 5. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan Vs Assistant 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). 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.33130 of 2025 7 “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.” 7. By virtue of opening the LOC, 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 persons SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 8 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.4, and the allegation against him is that he diverted loan funds and submitted fabricated stock statements and turnover details, thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank. In the case on hand, CBI filed closure report in the crime registered against the petitioner on 17.04.2025 on the ground that there is no prosecutable material, and the same pending consideration before the competent Court. 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. SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 9 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. “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 offence, nor any request for extradition of the petitioner has been made for the last 7 years despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. I, SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 10 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, continuation 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:22.01.2026 Asr SRK, J WP No.33130 of 2025 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.33130 of 2025 Date:22.01.2026 Asr