CWP-12854-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 131 Rajinder Singh Sall Union of India & others CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Ass through VC for Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J 1. The the Constitution of India is seeking direction to Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him. 2. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. under Sections 448, 511 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station NRI Affairs, District Kapurthala, Punjab. A Police. He applied for anticipatory bail which was granted vide order dated 27.01.2025. Thereafter, p 28.07.2025. Trial is still pending. The airport authorities again have refused him to fly abroad despite permission of the Court on the ground that LOC 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Rajinder Singh Sall Versus Union of India & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Assistant Solicitor General of India, through VC with Mr. Arvind Seth, for respondents No.1 to 5/UOI. Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 the Constitution of India is seeking direction to Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. ections 448, 511 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station NRI Affairs, District Kapurthala, Punjab. A Look Out Police. He applied for anticipatory bail which was granted vide order dated 27.01.2025. Thereafter, police filed final report in the aforesaid FIR on Trial is still pending. The airport authorities again have refused him to fly abroad despite permission of the Court on the OC has been issued against him. It is causing him immense IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12854-2026 Date of Decision: 28.10.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab. petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to withdraw the The petitioner was implicated in FIR No.02 dated 07.01.2023 ections 448, 511 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station NRI ut Circular (LOC) was issued by Police. He applied for anticipatory bail which was granted vide order dated olice filed final report in the aforesaid FIR on Trial is still pending. The airport authorities at Amritsar time and again have refused him to fly abroad despite permission of the Court on the has been issued against him. It is causing him immense of respondents to withdraw the 2 dated 07.01.2023 ections 448, 511 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station NRI was issued by Police. He applied for anticipatory bail which was granted vide order dated olice filed final report in the aforesaid FIR on time and again have refused him to fly abroad despite permission of the Court on the has been issued against him. It is causing him immense VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.28 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12854-2026 mental and financial loss. He is facing trial still LOC is issued which is nothing more than harassm 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide orders dated 22.09.2025 and 19.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala was granted permission to visit abroad. The Airport Authorities that there is LOC against him. He ha allowed to leave country. Once there is permission, him. 4. On being asked, learned counsel for the at present no application seeking permission to visit abroad is pending before the trial Court. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner in future may seek permission to visit abroad. 5. The petitioner was finally from Amritsar Airport. There is no evidence on record disclosing that the Airport Authorities at Amritsar stopped him on the ground of L authorities cannot detain or stop trial Court in his favour. 6. Petition stands disposed of. 28.04.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2026 -2- mental and financial loss. He is facing trial still LOC is issued which is nothing more than harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide orders dated 22.09.2025 and 19.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala was granted permission to visit abroad. The Authorities at Amritsar did not permit him to leave India on the ground that there is LOC against him. He had to travel to Delhi from where he was allowed to leave country. Once there is permission, On being asked, learned counsel for the at present no application seeking permission to visit abroad is pending before the trial Court. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner in future may seek permission to visit abroad. The petitioner was finally permitted to visit abroad though not from Amritsar Airport. There is no evidence on record disclosing that the uthorities at Amritsar stopped him on the ground of L authorities cannot detain or stop him from leaving country, if there is order of trial Court in his favour. Thus, no order is warranted Petition stands disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No mental and financial loss. He is facing trial still LOC is issued which is nothing Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide orders dated 22.09.2025 and 19.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala was granted permission to visit abroad. The did not permit him to leave India on the ground to travel to Delhi from where he was allowed to leave country. Once there is permission, there is no occasion to stop On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner confirmed that at present no application seeking permission to visit abroad is pending before the trial Court. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner in future permitted to visit abroad though not from Amritsar Airport. There is no evidence on record disclosing that the uthorities at Amritsar stopped him on the ground of LOC. The leaving country, if there is order of order is warranted at this stage. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No mental and financial loss. He is facing trial still LOC is issued which is nothing Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide orders dated 22.09.2025 and 19.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala was granted permission to visit abroad. The did not permit him to leave India on the ground to travel to Delhi from where he was there is no occasion to stop petitioner confirmed that at present no application seeking permission to visit abroad is pending before the trial Court. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner in future permitted to visit abroad though not from Amritsar Airport. There is no evidence on record disclosing that the The leaving country, if there is order of (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.28 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document