2021 (4) TMI 1386 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to second respondent to withdraw the look out circular issued against the petitioner by considering his representation dated 15.04.2021 - HELD THAT - Since there is no serious allegation against the petitioner in Crime No. 143 of 2021, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and no condition has been given in the aforesaid orders except banning the petitioner from visiting abroad. Moreover, it is also the contention of the petitioner herein that the petitioner's case is not covered in the look out circular issued by the first respondent. The only condition, which is now available to the petitioner is that he must appear before the concerned Court when the final report is filed. The process of investigation is not necessary insofar as Crime No. 142 of 2021, pending on the file of the fourth respondent, since a compromise was arrived between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. If at all this requirement is necessary is only in Crime No. 143 of 2021. The offences alleged in the said First Information Report are not grievous in nature. Hence, his presence may be required only at the time of trial. On this ground, the petitioner's liberty to go out of the country cannot be denied. The look out circular issued by the second respondent has to be withdrawn. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to the second respondent herein to withdraw or cancel the look out circular issued against this petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Writ of Mandamus to withdraw look out circular against petitioner

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the withdrawal of the look out circular issued against him by the second respondent. The petitioner was involved in cases registered in Crime Nos. 142 and 143 of 2021, where he was accused of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Immigration Act. The petitioner had filed criminal original petitions before the court and was granted anticipatory bail based on compromises reached with the complainants. The petitioner's contention was that the look out circular issued against him did not apply to his case, as he was required to appear before the court only when the final report was filed. The offenses alleged were not serious, and his presence might only be necessary at the time of trial, not during the investigation. The petitioner argued that his liberty to travel abroad should not be denied based on these grounds.

The court examined the instructions related to the issuance of look out circulars, emphasizing that such circulars are tools to regulate the entry, stay, and exit of individuals facing criminal charges. The court noted that the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in the cases against him and that there were no serious allegations in one of the cases. It was highlighted that the petitioner's case did not warrant the issuance of a look out circular, especially considering the nature of the offenses and the conditions imposed on the petitioner. The court referred to a previous case where a similar look out circular was withdrawn under comparable circumstances.

The government advocate representing the respondents acknowledged the facts of the case and left the decision to the court. Ultimately, the court held that since the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in both cases, the look out circular issued by the second respondent should be withdrawn. A Writ of Mandamus was issued to the second respondent to cancel the look out circular against the petitioner. The court allowed the writ petition, with no costs imposed, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.