2019 (4) TMI 2039 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking quashing of Look-out Circular - petitioner submits that the petitioner shall gave an undertaking to the Court that he shall continue to join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer and further that he shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence any witness in any manner - HELD THAT - Since, the petitioner has been regularly joining investigation, there is no justification in keeping the present Look-out Circular dated 16.05.2018 alive. The same be recalled by the issuing authority. Certain conditions imposed - the Trial Court is directed to return the passport of the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of Look-out Circular dated 16.05.2018 against the petitioner in a corruption case.

Analysis:
The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel, sought the quashing of the Look-out Circular issued by the respondent in a corruption case. The counsel for both parties presented arguments before the court. It was acknowledged by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI that the petitioner was an accused in the case. However, a previous court order had directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner, a directive that was still in effect. The record indicated that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation prior to the issuance of the Look-out Circular. The petitioner also agreed to forfeit a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) amounting to ?6 crores, which was deposited as security. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner assured the court that the petitioner would continue to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with evidence, and not influence any witnesses. The court noted the petitioner's regular participation in the investigation and deemed the Look-out Circular unnecessary. Specific conditions were imposed on the petitioner, including cooperating with the Investigating Officer, providing travel details if going abroad, and keeping the FDR amount in place until a specified date. Failure to comply with these conditions would result in forfeiture of the FDR. The Trial Court was instructed to return the petitioner's passport. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and the registry was tasked with communicating the order to relevant authorities.

Additionally, various miscellaneous applications related to the case were deemed unnecessary in light of the writ petition's outcome and were consequently disposed of.