2013 (10) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to withdraw the Lookout Circular (L.O.C) issued - Offence punishable u/s 304(ii) IPC - 'EVP Theme Park' - mishap occurred while having ride in the Octopus - HELD THAT - L.O.C. containing full particulars of the person is being sent throughout the world. Even to Interpol also. It is being sent using software techniques. Its effect is that the person against whom L.O.C. has been issued, if lands in an Indian Airport, he will be apprehended. There will be difficulty for him to land in a foreign country also as he will not allowed to enter the country from the Airport. Petitioners are facing criminal prosecutions. They are granted bail/anticipatory bail. They are holders of valid Indian Passports. They have strong roots in the society. They are business people. They need to travel abroad often. So far there is no valid restriction on their movement by any Court order or Ministry of Home Affairs or External Affairs. They are not stated be involved in any heinous crimes. They are not terrorists. Nor anti-social elements. There is no allegation that they have absconded. Thus, they cannot be brought under any one of the categories with respect to whom L.O.C. orders are being issued . In the facts and circumstances of this case and due to the subsequent developments, so far as the petitioners are concerned, L.O.C. orders becomes irrelevant. Thus, the 1st respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Chennai is directed to withdraw the Look Out Circular order issued as against the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition seeking withdrawal of Lookout Circular (L.O.C.) issued against petitioners u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Background: The petitioners are involved in a criminal case regarding a mishap at their theme park leading to a fatality. They are seeking withdrawal of the L.O.C. order issued against them during the investigation.

2. Fundamental Rights: The court emphasized that involvement in a criminal case does not strip a person of their fundamental rights, including the right to move freely, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Regulation of Movement: While acknowledging the need to regulate the movement of individuals involved in criminal cases, especially those with the potential to flee, the court stressed that such regulation must be fair and reasonable, not arbitrary.

4. Instructions on L.O.C.: The court referred to the instructions regarding the issuance of L.O.C., which categorize individuals to be included in the circular based on various criteria, including criminal charges, absconding offenders, and persons with terrorist links.

5. Petitioners' Status: The petitioners, being business people with strong ties to the community and no allegations of involvement in serious crimes, were found not to fit the categories warranting L.O.C. orders.

6. Precedents: Citing previous cases where L.O.C. orders were lifted in certain circumstances, the court concluded that, given the petitioners' situation and the lack of valid restrictions on their movement, the L.O.C. orders against them were irrelevant.

7. Judgment: The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to withdraw the Lookout Circular order issued against the petitioners, considering their background and the absence of justifiable reasons for the L.O.C. to remain in effect.

This summary provides a detailed account of the judgment, highlighting the issues involved and the court's reasoning in each aspect of the case.