9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1274 - HC - Indian LawsTravel Restrictions - validity of detention at Mumbai Airport - principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that when he is not arraigned as an accused in any FIR, much less FIR pertaining to offences registered against the owner of Kingfisher Airlines, there was no basis for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to impose travel restrictions on him - HELD THAT - It is specifed that recourse to issuance of LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal laws. It is also specifed therein that in cases where there is no cognizable offence under the IPC or other penal laws, LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The agency which has caused the issuance of LOC can only request that it be informed about arrival/departure of the subject in such cases. This is of signifcance in the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the office memoranda would show that in the present case, since the petitioner is not arraigned as accused for cognizable offence and he was merely called for questioning only once by Respondent No. 2-CBI in connection with case of Kingfisher Airlines, travel restrictions could not have been imposed upon him. All that Respondent No. 2-CBI could insist upon, under clause (h) of the office memorandum dated 27.10.2010, was that it be informed about arrival/departure of the petitioner in connection with his trips abroad - It is not even the case of the respondents that if the petitioner is permitted to leave the country it would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security or integrity of India or bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic/economic interests of India. It is also not the case of the respondents that any amounts are to be recovered from the petitioner for which the Chairman of the SBI or any other public sector bank has made a request for issuance of LOC. There can be no doubt that the petitioner needs to co-operate with Respondent No. 2-CBI in that regard. But, it cannot be said that Respondent No. 2 was entitled to impose travel restrictions to prevent the petitioner from travelling abroad. The Petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad for his personal and professional obligations, subject to the conditions imposed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of travel restrictions imposed on the Petitioner. 2. Validity of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner. 3. Petitioner's right to travel abroad. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements for issuing LOCs. 5. Judicial review of executive actions related to LOCs. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Travel Restrictions Imposed on the Petitioner: The Petitioner, a former Chairman of the State Bank of India (SBI), was detained at Mumbai Airport on 29/09/2018 by immigration officials and later released with instructions to contact the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Petitioner was unaware of any specific document imposing travel restrictions and received no response from the CBI regarding his detention. The Petitioner, who frequently travels abroad for professional reasons, filed the present Writ Petition to seek clarity and avoid future detentions that could harm his reputation. 2. Validity of Look Out Circular (LOC) Issued Against the Petitioner: The Petitioner was questioned by the CBI on 29/03/2018 in connection with a case involving Kingfisher Airlines but was not named as an accused. Despite this, an LOC dated 04/09/2018 was issued against him, which led to his detention at the airport. The Petitioner argued that since he was not an accused in any FIR, the issuance of the LOC was arbitrary and lacked legal basis. The CBI contended that the LOC was necessary to prevent the Petitioner from fleeing the country due to his involvement in high-value economic offences. 3. Petitioner's Right to Travel Abroad: The Petitioner emphasized his high repute and professional obligations that necessitate frequent international travel. He argued that the travel restrictions imposed were unjustified, especially since he had traveled abroad multiple times between March and September 2018 without any issues. The court noted that despite the CBI's claim of unsatisfactory answers during questioning, the Petitioner was allowed to travel freely until the LOC was issued. 4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Issuing LOCs: The court examined various circulars and office memoranda outlining the procedural requirements for issuing LOCs. It was noted that LOCs should be issued in cognizable offences where the accused is evading arrest or likely to flee the country. The court found that the Petitioner, not being an accused and having cooperated with the CBI, did not meet the criteria for such restrictions. The court also highlighted that the CBI could only request information about the Petitioner's travel, not prevent it. 5. Judicial Review of Executive Actions Related to LOCs: The court referred to several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, establishing that the issuance of LOCs is subject to judicial review. The court emphasized that travel restrictions should balance public interest and individual rights, and arbitrary actions could be set aside. The court found that the LOC against the Petitioner was issued without sufficient grounds and was thus arbitrary. Conclusion: The court allowed the Writ Petition, permitting the Petitioner to travel abroad for personal and professional reasons. The Petitioner was required to inform the CBI of his travel details and cooperate with any future inquiries. The court clarified that if any incriminating material emerged, the CBI could proceed against the Petitioner as per the law. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and protecting individual rights against arbitrary executive actions.
|
