Telangana High Court
Mrs. Komal Sutinder Singh vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No.2078 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
"to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus;
i) Declaring the action of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing the impugned circular/ communication/ proceeding to Respondents No.1 to 3 for seeking a restraint of the Petitioner holding her passport vide Passport No.Y9748128 from travelling outside India as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same.
ii) Declaring actions of Respondents No.1 to 3 in taking note of such communication/proceeding issued by the Respondent No.4 and intimating the officials of Respondent No.3 to restrain the 2 WP_2078_2024 SN,J Petitioner from travelling as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and strike down and set aside the same.
iii) and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in brief, is as under :
a) The petitioner intended to travel to Dubai from 23.01.2024 to 31.01.2024 to visit her daughter as there was a personal emergency situation being faced by her. For that purpose, on 23.01.2024, when the petitioner reached Rajiv Gandhi International Airport for taking the flight to Dubai, the immigration authorities prevented the petitioner from travelling stating that the F.I.R.No.RC0782021E0006 dated 16.12.2021 was registered by the respondent No.5 wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 and there was a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner. The petitioner has shown the respondent authorities the interim orders granted by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2023 in I.A.No.1 3 WP_2078_2024 SN,J of 2022 in W.P.No.45020 of 2022 wherein this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.RC0782021E0006 dated 16.12.2021 till 14.09.2023 and the said order has been extended from time to time and it is still in force. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, this Writ Petition is filed.
4. The main submissions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is as follows :
The impugned Look-out circular is erroneous, and is contrary to the settled principle of law that Look-out circulars must not be issued as matter of regular course and must be issued only in exceptional circumstances where the person subjected to the LOC has been absconding and has not been available for interrogation and appearance evading the police summons and there exists a grave possibility of the said person fleeing the country and as such, there existed no such exceptional circumstances for issuance/implementation of the LOC against the petitioner and the impugned circular is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
PERUSED THE RECORD :4
WP_2078_2024 SN,J
5) The counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, in particular, paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15, read as follows:
"9. Accordingly, after registration of FIR on 16.12.2021 in the instant case, as requested by the respondent/CBI, Bureau of Immigration has opened LOC on 21.01.2021 in respect of the petitioner/accused in order to prevent the subject from leaving the country and to secure presence of the petitioner/accused for investigation of the case.
10. That the averments made in para 12 are facts on record. It is submitted that since, after registration of the FIR, the LOC was opened against the petitioner/accused to prevent from leaving the country, the Immigration Authorities have acted upon the same in consultation with the respondent/CBI as there are no orders either for revocation or suspension of the LOC against the petitioner/accused.
12. It is submitted that as per the extant guidelines, LOC was opened against the petitioner accused after registration of the FIR and there is no provision for providing information regarding opening of a LOC to the concerned person.
14. Accordingly, in strict compliance with said OM, after registration of the FIR, the LOC was opened against the petitioner/accused, who is involved in an economic offence causing a huge of loss of around Rs.240.00 Cr of public money to the complainant bank. It is further submitted that the right under Article 21 of the constitution is not absolute and subject to the restrictions, in particular when the LOC subject is involved in such huge economic fraud and there is no provision for providing information to the person regarding opening of a LOC against him/her. The 5 WP_2078_2024 SN,J averments of the petitioner's petition are not legally sustainable and the same is devoid of merits.
15. The public faith in the system will erode if such economic offenders are allowed to leave country when there is an apprehension that after leaving the country she may not return to the country as her daughter is already settled in Dubai. Such a move will badly protract the process of law in such serious economic frauds."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in the present case contends that the writ petition should be dismissed.
7. The Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 3 would submit that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are only custodian and it is maintaining the lookout circulars issued by the Originator and in the present case the Originators are Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
8. This Court vide its orders dated 01.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.2078 of 2024 suspended the 6 WP_2078_2024 SN,J LOC dated 21.01.2021 issued against the petitioner for a period from 06.02.2024 to 12.02.2024.
9. Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs dealing with consolidated guidelines for issuance of Look Out Circular in respect of Indian Citizens and Foreigners and the relevant paras A, B, C, D, H, I, J, and L, of the said circular are extracted hereunder:
"6. The existing guidelines with regard to issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners have been reviewed by this Ministry. After due deliberations in consultation with various stakeholders and in supersession of all the existing guidelines issued vide this Ministry's letters/O.M. referred to in para 1 above, it has been decided with the approval of the competent authority that the following consolidated guidelines shall be followed henceforth by all concerned for the purpose of issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners:-
A. The request for opening an LOC would be made by the Originating Agency (OA) to the Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration (BoI), East Block - VIII, R.K. 7 WP_2078_2024 SN,J Puram, New Delhi - 110066 (Telefax: 011- 26192883, email:[email protected]) in the enclosed proforma.
B. The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an Originating Agency that shall be an officer not below the rank of - (i) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or (ii) Joint Secretary in the State Government; or (iii) District Magistrate of the District concerned; or (iv) Superintendent of Police (SP) of the District concerned; or (v) SP in CBI or an officer of equivalent level working in CBI; or (vi) Zonal Director in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or an officer of equivalent level (including Assistant Director (Ops) in Headquarters of NCB]; or
(vii) Deputy Commissioner or an officer of equivalent level in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or Central Board of Direct Taxes or Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs; or (viii) Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau/Bureau of Immigration (BoI); or
(ix) Deputy Secretary of Research and Analysis Wing (R&A W); or (x) An officer not below the level of Superintendent of Police in National Investigation Agency; or (xi) Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate; or (xii) Protector of Emigrants in the office of the Protectorate of Emigrants or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or (xiii) Designated officer of Interpol; or (xiv) An officer of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs not below the rank of 8 WP_2078_2024 SN,J Additional Director (in the rank of Director in the Government of India); or (xv) Chairman/Managing Directors/Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks."
C. LOCs can also be issued as per directions of any Criminal Court in India. In all such cases, request for opening of LOC shall be initiated by the local police or by any other Law Enforcement Agencies concerned so that all parameters for opening LOCs are available.
D. The name and designation of the officer signing the Proforma for requesting issuance of an LOC must invariably be mentioned without which the request for issuance of LOC would not be entertained.
H. Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in Column IV in the enclosed Proforma regarding 'reason for opening LOC must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained.
I. In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The Originating Agency can 9 WP_2078_2024 SN,J only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases. J. The LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by BoI from the Originator itself. No LOC shall be deleted automatically. Originating Agency must keep reviewing the LOCs opened at its behest on quarterly and annual basis and submit the proposals to delete the LOC. If any, immediately after such a review. The BOI should contact the LOC Originators through normal channels as well as through the online portal. In all cases where the person against whom LOC has been opened is no longer wanted by the Originating Agency or by Competent Court, the LOC deletion request must be conveyed to BoI immediately so that liberty of the individual is not jeopardized. L. In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (B) above, if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the 10 WP_2078_2024 SN,J strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an Act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time.
10. A bare perusal of Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 (referred to and extracted above) mandates that a LOC shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator and that no LOC shall be deleted automatically. Although this clause cast an obligation on the originating agency to review the LOC on a quarterly/annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same, the same however is not followed seriously by the authorities concerned. In the present case Bureau of Investigation has opened LOC against the petitioner on 21.01.2021 as requested by the Respondents/CBI, after registration of FIR No.16.12.2021 against the petitioner and the same is continued since then. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 and 5 (CBI) does not indicate any 11 WP_2078_2024 SN,J exercise of review of the LOC issued against the petitioner on 21.01.2021 on a quarterly/annual basis nor any specific reasons are indicated for continuing the LOC indefinitely for years. It is also not the case as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 and 5 (CBI) that the petitioner evaded the investigation or trial or Court proceedings or absconded except stating in the counter affidavit at para 5 that there is an apprehension that if economic offenders are allowed to leave the country, the petitioner may not return to India since petitioner's daughter is already settled in Dubai. This Court opines that apprehension cannot be the ground to issue LOC against the petitioner and continue the same for years.
11. A bare perusal of Sub-para L of the circular dt.22.02.2021 (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that LOCs could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic 12 WP_2078_2024 SN,J interests of India or that person may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State, if such person is allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time. This Court is of the firm opinion that lookout circular can be issued on the specific grounds stated in Sub-para L of the OM dt.22.02.2021 (referred to and extracted above).
12. The look out circular issued against the petitioner in the present case is contrary to sub-para J and L of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 and therefore, this Court opines that the 5th Respondent herein cannot have any continuing reasons to interfere with the Petitioner's personal liberty and Petitioner's right to travel outside the country.
13. A bare perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 - CBI referred to and extracted above indicates that the reason for opening the LOC against the petitioner is to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country and to 13 WP_2078_2024 SN,J secure the presence of the petitioner/accused for investigation of the case, since the petitioner is accused in economic fraud. The LOC had been opened on 23.01.2024 and it is being continued indefinitely.
14. Few judgments of the Apex Court and other Courts pertaining to right to liberty and lookout circulars and the observations made there under are extracted hereunder:
A. The Apex Court in judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under :
"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
B. The Apex Court in "MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, and in "SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS" reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of a personal liberty. 14
WP_2078_2024 SN,J C. The Apex Court way back in 1967, in Judgment reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836, in "Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law.
D. The Apex Court in Vishambhar Saran v Bureau of Immigration held that mere quantum of alleged default of a loan by a citizen cannot be the basis for the extreme measure of restricting the personal liberty of a borrower/guarantor to travel inside or outside India and accordingly set aside the LOCs issued against the petitioners therein inter alia, on the ground that no objective parameter were found for the issuance of LOCs against the petitioners. Nothing detrimental to the economic interest of India or exceptional was established in the said case, it was held. 15
WP_2078_2024 SN,J E. It is observed at paras 62 to 66 in the Judgment dated 31.01.2023 in W.P.A.No.6670 of 2022 in the said case of "Vishambhar Saran v. Bureau of Immigration"
as under:
"62. Considering the materials on record, the averments in affidavit-in- opposition and documents annexed thereto, this Court comes to the conclusion that the conditions which must pre- exist as per the existing policy of the government for opening LOC, are absent in this case.
63. A bald assertion that the petitioner's departure would be detrimental to the economic interest of the country and the LOC must be issued in larger public interest, cannot be due satisfaction of the existing pre- conditions required to be fulfilled before the originator can make such a request. The existence of such pre-conditions and the manner in which the action of the petitioner fell within the exceptions or had affected the country's economic interest had to be demonstrated from the records. The apprehension should be well-founded, backed by reasons and also supported by evidence. The decision of Karnataka High Court in Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (supra) also does not apply in the facts of this case. With due respect, this Court does not agree with the conclusions arrived at in the said judgment, especially with regard to the 16 WP_2078_2024 SN,J comparison between the quantum of the loan and the annual budget of a state. Whether the outstanding loan with interest, would be more than the budgetary allocation of a particular state or not, in my opinion, is not one of the parameters to be considered.
64. The bank acted in arbitrary exercise of the power vested in making a request for opening LOC which was an attempt to curtail personal liberty and fundamental right of movement of a citizen guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
65. The request of BOB for issuance of LOC dated 29 November, 2021 and all steps taken thereafter, if any, are set aside and quashed. The bank is at liberty to request the immigration authorities to intimate the entry and exit of the petitioner to and from the country.
66. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
F. In the judgment dated 05.04.2022 in Noor Paul v Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC on P&H 3408 referring to an LoC issued to a guarantor it is observed as under:
"(a) The action of the respondent No.2 Bank in seeking issuance of a LoC to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country on the ground that she was a guarantor to respondent No.5's loan and 17 WP_2078_2024 SN,J there was more than Rs.100 crores owed to respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the same is set aside.
G. In the judgment dated 07.11.2022 in W.P.A.No.9007 of 2022, in Suchita Dinodya v Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal.3536 the High Court of Calcutta held as under:
"The petitioner is not subjected to any criminal case, nor is the sovereignty or security or integrity of India to suffer ex facie if the petitioner leaves India. The mere quantum of the loan recoverable is Rs.73 crores, by itself cannot be sufficient to tag the claim to be 'for larger public interest' and/or deemed to affect' the economic interest of the country as a whole'. The LOC issued in respect of the petitioner is not justified at all and the W.P.A.No.9007 of 2022 is allowed thereby setting aside the LoC issued in respect of the petitioner."
H. In the judgment dated 02.06.2022 in Poonam Paul v Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC Online P& H 1176 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dealt with a case of issuance of circular and observed as under:
18
WP_2078_2024 SN,J "Merely looking at the quantum of loss caused to a banker, it cannot be presumed that there was a fraud committed by the borrower/guarantor more so when no criminal case alleging fraud has even been filed against the borrower/guarantor suspicion cannot take the place of proof and further clearly observed "the action of the respondent No.2 Bank in seeking issuance of an Loc to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country on the ground that she was a guarantor to respondent No.5's loan and there was more than Rs.100 crores owed to respondent No.2 is arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
I. In the case of Brij Bhushan Kathuria v Union of India and others W.P.(C)3374/2021, reported in Manu/DE/0737/2021, the Delhi High Court while setting aside the LOC issued against the petitioner held that the phrases such as "economic interest" or "larger public interest" could not be expanded in a manner so as to restrict an independent director who was in the past associated with the company being investigated, from traveling abroad, without any specific role being attributed to him.19
WP_2078_2024 SN,J J. In the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy v State, reported in 2013 SCC online Mad 4092, the Madras High Court while setting aside an LOC, observed as under:
"9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. It is the fundamental right of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One's such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. In the celebrated case in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of persons to go abroad. The phrase no one shall be deprived of his "life and liberty" except procedure established by law employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental right and human right. MENAKA GANDHI (supra) ushered a new era in the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'.
10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are anti- social elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arise to apprehend persons, who have ability to fly, and flee away from the country. So, L.O.C. orders are issued. It is an harmonious way out between a 20 WP_2078_2024 SN,J person's fundamental right and interest of the society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.
K. In the case of Rana Ayyub v Union of India and another W.P. (CRL) 714/2022, reported in 2022 SCC Online Del 961 the Delhi High Court at paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment observed as under:
"12. In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non- Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC.21
WP_2078_2024 SN,J
13. The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed.
L. In the case of Soumen Sarkar v State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Home Department and others reported in 2021 SCC online Tri 143, the High Court of Tripura on perusal of MHA's Office Memorandum dated 31.08.2010, stated that the reasons for opening LOC must be given categorically. It was held that LOCs cannot not be issued as a matter of course, but only when reasons existed and the accused deliberately evaded arrest or did not appear in the trial Court.
M. In the case of Karti P.Chidambaram v Bureau of Immigration, reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 2229, the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed as under:
"73. As observed above, the issuance of Look Out Circulars is governed by executive instructions as contained in the Office Memoranda Nos.25022/13/78-F1 22 WP_2078_2024 SN,J dated 05.09.1979 and 25022/20/98-FIV dated 27.12.2000, as modified by Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010. Such LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but when reasons exist, where an accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court. The argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General that a request for Look Out Circular could have been made in view of the inherent power of the investigating authority to secure attendance and cooperation of an accused is contrary to the aforesaid circulars and thus, not sustainable.
74. It is, in the view of this Court, too late in the day to contend that whether or not to issue an LOC, being a executive decision, the same is not subject to judicial review. It is now well settled that any decision, be it executive or quasi-judicial, is amenable to the power of judicial review of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when such decision has adverse civil consequences. An LOC, which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with his right of personal liberty and free movement, certainly has adverse civil consequences. This Court, therefore, holds that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ Court can interfere with an LOC.23
WP_2078_2024 SN,J
15. This Court opines that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent have no application to the facts of the present case.
16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and duly taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 and 5 - CBI (referred to and extracted above) in the light of the discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above and duly taking into consideration the view and the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in various judgments (referred to and extracted above) pertaining to circumstances for issuance of lookout circulars and again enlisted hereunder:-
1. The Apex Court judgment in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570.
2. The Apex Court judgment in "MENAKA GANDHI VS.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 and in "SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS" reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048.
24
WP_2078_2024 SN,J
3. The Apex Court Judgment in "Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836,.
4. The judgment dated 05.04.2022 in Noor Paul v Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC on P&H 3408.
5. The judgment dated 07.11.2022 in W.P.A.No.9007 of 2022, in Suchita Dinodya v Union of India reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal.3536 the High Court of Calcutta
6. The judgment dated 02.06.2022 in Poonam Paul v Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC Online P& H 1176 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
7. The Madras High Court judgment in E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy v State, reported in 2013 SCC online Mad 4092.
8. In Rana Ayyub v Union of India and another W.P. (CRL) 714/2022, reported in 2022 SCC Online Del 961 of the Delhi High Court.
9. In Soumen Sarkar v State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Home Department and others reported in 2021 SCC online Tri 143, of the High Court of Tripura.
10. In Karti P.Chidambaram v Bureau of Immigration, reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 2229 of the Madras High Court.
17. This Court opines that the pleas putforth by respondent Nos.4 and 5 that since petitioner is an accused in economic fraud and therefore, to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country the lookout circular is being continued against the petitioner is 25 WP_2078_2024 SN,J unsustainable since it is not the case of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 even as per their counter that the petitioner is deliberately evading summons/arrest or petitioner failed to appear in Court despite of a non- bailable warrant issued against the petitioner and hence, the pleas of respondent Nos.4 and 5 justifying the continuation of lookout circular against the petitioner are rejected. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Dated: 07.03.2024 Lpd