Delhi District Court
Dalmia Family Office Trust vs State And Anr on 14 March, 2026
DLND010003542026 Page 1 of 26
Cr Rev 14/2026
Dalmia Family Office Trust
Vs.
State & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 14/2026
In the matter of :-
Dalmia Family Office Trust
Address: 4, Scindia House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
.....Revisionist
(represented by Ld. Counsels Sh. Tejasv Anand
& Sh. Shreyansh Khare)
Versus
State
Through SHO
....Respondent No. 1
(represented by Ld. Addl. PP for State Sh. Mukul Kumar)
Vipul Maheshwari
S/o Lt. Sh. Mahesh Chandra
R/o Flat No. 6052, ATS One Hamlet,
Sector-104, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh
....Respondent No. 2
(represented by Ld. Counsels Sh. Lakshya Gupta
and Sh. Abhay Rai Singh)
DLND010003542026 Page 2 of 26
Cr Rev 14/2026
Dalmia Family Office Trust
Vs.
State & Anr.
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 R/w 440 BNSS
Date of institution : 13.01.2026
Date when judgment reserved : 07.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 14.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Revision Petition under Section 438 read with Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in the matter of State v. Vipul Maheshwari in FIR No. 88/2021, PS EOW, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC, whereby the Look Out Circular opened against the Respondent No. 2 was directed to be deleted.
1.2. The Revisionist, Dalmia Family Office Trust, challenges the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-01 ("ACJM"), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Look Out Circular ("LOC") opened against the Respondent No. 2, Mr. Vipul Maheshwari, in connection with FIR No. 88/2021, PS Economic Offences Wing ("EOW"), New Delhi, was directed to be deleted. The Revision Petition principally urges that the Ld. ACJM committed a grave error of jurisdiction and judicial propriety in allowing the application of Respondent No. 2 while a coordinate bench had, vide order dated 13.09.2024, dismissed DLND010003542026 Page 3 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
a similar application of co-accused persons Mr. Getamber Anand and Mrs. Poonam Anand, which order had not been disturbed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
1.3. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the grounds of violation of judicial discipline and parity, suppression of material facts by the Respondent No. 2 before the Ld. ACJM, erroneous appreciation of the interplay between Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the LOC framework, and failure to appreciate the flight risk posed by the Respondent No. 2 given the gravity of the alleged offences and his admitted foreign ties.
1.4. Respondent No. 2 has filed a detailed reply opposing the Revision Petition, urging that the impugned order is a well-reasoned, speaking order correctly applying binding precedents governing the issuance and continuation of LOCs, that it does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and that the Revision Petition is not maintainable in law being a challenge to an interlocutory order, besides being meritless on facts.
1.5. I have heard the learned counsels at length, perused the impugned order, the revision petition, the reply thereto, the original application for cancellation of LOC, the IO's reply, the impugned order dated 13.09.2024, the relevant FIRs, and the authorities cited by both sides, and I now proceed to render my judgment.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2.1. The FIR and the Accused: FIR No. 88/2021 was registered on 29.06.2021 at PS EOW, New Delhi, under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC (Section DLND010003542026 Page 4 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
409 IPC subsequently added) on a complaint by the Revisionist -- Dalmia Family Office Trust -- through its authorised representative Sh. Inderpreet Singh. The complaint alleged that the Accused Persons, including Respondent No. 2 Mr. Vipul Maheshwari, who was the Chief Operating Officer of M/s ATS Infrastructure Limited and a Director of M/s Domus Greens Private Limited and M/s ATS Housing Private Limited (collectively, "ATS Group Companies-I"), hatched a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Revisionist of a principal sum of approximately Rs. 113 Crores, which sum, with interest as claimed, now stands at over Rs. 700 Crores. The Revisionist alleged that funds were solicited through twelve Investment and Loan Agreements between September 2013 and May 2015, with representations of high assured returns, and that the flats allotted as exclusive security were dishonestly transferred to third parties, as admitted in a Memorandum before the Ld. Arbitrator dated 27.01.2021.
2.2. Multiple FIRs and Investigative Background: In addition to FIR No. 88/2021, the IO has placed on record that several other FIRs were registered at PS EOW against the ATS Group and its associates: FIR No. 61/2021 (on the complaint of Vani Raheja and 8 others), FIR No. 169/2021 (quashed by the Delhi High Court on 02.12.2024), FIR No. 81/2023, FIR No. 82/2023, and FIR No. 110/2024. The Enforcement Directorate has also registered an ECIR against the Accused Persons. It was after this matter was kept for orders that the chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Officer.
DLND010003542026 Page 5 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
2.3. The LOC and the Application for its Cancellation
(a) The LOC was opened against Respondent No. 2 in the year 2023, following the registration of FIR Nos. 81/2023 and 82/2023. Respondent No. 2 came to know of the LOC on 16.07.2025 when he was stopped at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, while attempting to travel to Dubai for official work. He filed an application seeking cancellation of the LOC before the Ld. ACJM.
(b) The IO opposed the application on the grounds of (i) the pendency of six FIRs against the Accused; (ii) the investigation being at a crucial and concluding stage; (iii) the Accused being the main Director of ATS Infrastructure Ltd.; (iv) the ECIR registered by the ED; and (v) the alleged risk of flight given the magnitude of the alleged fraud.
(c) The Revisionist (Complainant) also appeared and opposed the application, urging the history of asset dissipation, the contempt proceedings against the primary co-accused before the Delhi High Court, the personal insolvency proceedings, and the dismissal of the identical application of co-accused Getamber Anand and Poonam Anand vide order dated 13.09.2024.
3. THE IMPUGNED ORDER -- GIST AND RELEVANT PORTIONS 3.1. The Ld. ACJM, after hearing all parties, passed the order dated 05.12.2025 allowing the application and directing deletion of the LOC. The relevant and operative portions of the impugned order are as under:
(a) "There is no allegation against the applicant that he evaded the investigation or did not co-operate with the investigating agency during DLND010003542026 Page 6 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
the investigation. The fact that the applicant was released on the notice u/s 41A CrPC itself suggest that there is no apprehension of the applicant evading the investigation or that he would either tamper with the evidences or influence the witnesses. Further, the submission on behalf of the State that since the cheated amount is considerable, the presence of the applicant cannot be secured except with the LOC in existence, is self-contradictory. Had there been any apprehension of the applicant evading the investigation or the trial, he should not have been released merely on the notice u/s 41A CrPC. It would be utterly illogical to say on one hand that the LOC opened against the applicant is necessary to secure the presence of the applicant during investigation and trial and on the other, the decision not to arrest him and release merely on the notice u/s 41A CrPC..."
(b) "The investigating officer has not sought the custody of the applicant even after the registration of other 05 FIRs against the applicant as alleged..."
(c) "As far as the objection on behalf of the complainant that similar application was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench on 13.09.2024 is concerned, it is suffice to say that the observations made by Ld. JMFC in his order dated 13.09.2024 are made in respect of a co-accused and not with respect to the applicant. Further, the order dated 13.09.2024 does not bind this court to take a different view..."
DLND010003542026 Page 7 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
(d) "In view of the above, the application is allowed. DCP, EOW is directed to take steps for deletion of the LOC opened against the applicant in respect of the present FIR."
3.2. The crux of the impugned order therefore rests upon three central findings: (i) the accused fully cooperated with investigation and was never arrested -- the IO's conduct in issuing a Section 41A notice was inconsistent with the State's claim of flight risk; (ii) the reasons given in the DCP's communication for opening the LOC were inadequate and not in conformity with the prescribed Office Memorandum format or the judicial guidelines in Sumer Singh Salkan; and (iii) the order passed in the co-accused's application dated 13.09.2024 did not bind the Ld. ACJM to reject Respondent No. 2's application, as the individual facts of each accused person fall to be considered independently."
4. CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE REVISION PETITION The Revision Petition urges the following grounds:
4.1. Judicial Propriety: The Ld. ACJM violated the principles of judicial propriety by granting relief to Respondent No. 2 when a coordinate bench had dismissed an identical application by co-accused persons whose LOC had not been disturbed by the Hon'ble High Court on an interim application;
reliance is placed on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Anr., 2005 SCC OnLine SC 117 and Sub-Inspector Rooplal Anr. v. Lt. Governor Ors., 1999 SCC OnLine SC 1324.
DLND010003542026 Page 8 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
4.2. Parity: The Respondent No. 2 being a co-conspirator and having the same mens rea and executive control as the other co-accused, the findings of the coordinate bench as to deep stakes and flight risk would apply with equal force to him.
4.3. Misrepresentation: The impugned order was based on the misrepresentation by Respondent No. 2 that he was not an accused in the FIRs referred to in Para 5 of the IO's reply; he was, in fact, an accused in FIR No. 61/2021.
4.4. Section 41A does not preclude an LOC: The Ld. ACJM erred in holding that the issuance of Section 41A notice was inconsistent with the LOC; the legal threshold for restricting foreign travel is lower than that for arrest. 4.5. Non-consideration of flight risk and conduct: The Ld. ACJM failed to consider Respondent No. 2's admitted foreign family ties (son in the USA, another son seeking to study in Dubai), his involvement in multiple FIRs, the quantum of the alleged fraud, and the non-bailable warrants issued by the SCDRC.
4.6. Absence of conditions: The impugned order grants an unconditional, blanket deletion of the LOC without imposing any safeguards to secure the accused's return.
5. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF Respondent No. 2 filed a detailed reply opposing the revision petition on the following grounds:
5.1. Maintainability: The impugned order being interlocutory in nature cannot be challenged in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438-440 BNSS.DLND010003542026 Page 9 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026
Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
5.2. Well-reasoned order: The impugned order is a well-reasoned, speaking order passed after due hearing and does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting revision. 5.3. Cooperation: Respondent No. 2 has consistently co-operated with the investigation, has joined investigation whenever called, has never been arrested, and no notice under Section 41A(3) Cr.P.C. has ever been issued for custodial interrogation.
5.4. Three conditions under Sumer Singh Salkan not met: As authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699, an LOC can only be resorted to where
(a) the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing despite NBWs
(b) coercive measures like NBWs have been issued but not complied with, and
(c) there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to evade trial/arrest.
None of the three conditions are satisfied in the present case. 5.5. LOC not in prescribed format: The DCP's communication dated 26.11.2023 ordering opening of the LOC is inadequate, does not comply with the prescribed proforma, and merely states that accused is involved in the FIR and investigation is ongoing -- which are insufficient reasons. 5.6. LOC for indefinite period impermissible: The FIR was registered in 2021 and no chargesheet has been filed as of date. The LOC cannot remain operative in perpetuity specially.
DLND010003542026 Page 10 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
5.7. No parity in the accused's favour: The doctrine of parity cannot operate adversely against the accused -- it can only be invoked by another accused person seeking similar relief.
5.8. Right to travel under Article 21: Reliance is placed on Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 97; Rana Ayyub v. Union of India, W.P. Crl. 714/2022 (04.04.2022); Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643; and Krishan Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435.
6. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 6.1. Arguments of the Revisionist/Complainant: Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned order is a product of non- application of judicial mind. He argued that the Ld. ACJM has ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 is not a passive official but the COO and Director of the ATS Group Companies-I, who actively participated in the fraudulent scheme involving over Rs. 700 Crores. He submitted that the coordinate bench's order dated 13.09.2024, which dismissed an identical LOC- cancellation application by co-accused Getamber Anand and Poonam Anand, ought to have weighed heavily with the Ld. ACJM, particularly since the Hon'ble Delhi High Court did not grant interim stay on that order. He argued that allowing Respondent No. 2's application while the co- accused's application had been dismissed creates conflicting judicial orders under the same FIR, which violates judicial discipline. Specific reliance was placed on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and Sub-Inspector Rooplal to emphasise DLND010003542026 Page 11 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
that a subsequent coordinate bench must give due weight to an earlier order. He further argued that Respondent No. 2's admitted family ties in the USA and Dubai create a very real flight risk, and the impugned order grants him an unconditional, blanket licence to leave the country at will. He lastly argued that the gravity of the offences -- including Section 409 IPC which carries a sentence up to life imprisonment -- significantly increases the stakes and the flight risk, which the Ld. ACJM failed to appreciate. 6.2. Arguments of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State: Ld. Addl. PP for the State supported the Revision Petition to the extent of urging that the investigation in multiple FIRs is ongoing and the accused is a key Director of the accused company. He submitted that the LOC was opened for the purpose of securing the accused's presence during investigation and trial. He stated that the investigation is at a concluding stage and the LOC's continuance is necessary to ensure the accused remains within the jurisdiction. He, however, conceded that no chargesheet has been filed in FIR No. 88/2021 despite the FIR having been registered in the year 2021. It may however be noted that during the pendency of the revision petition, the chargesheet has been filed without arrest.
6.3. Arguments of Respondent No. 2: Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Revision Petition is not maintainable since the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, being an order cancelling an LOC, and such orders do not touch the merits of the case or determine substantive rights of the parties. On merits, he submitted that the impugned order correctly applies the ratio in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra), which requires that for an DLND010003542026 Page 12 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
LOC to subsist, the accused must be deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in Court despite NBWs, and there must be a likelihood of his fleeing the country. None of these conditions are met since the accused co- operated with investigation whenever called and was never arrested. He drew the Court's attention to the State's own conduct: the IO consciously chose to proceed under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and not arrest the accused, which is a statutory acknowledgment that the accused is not a flight risk. He submitted that the LOC cannot be used as a coercive substitute for arrest. He further urged that the parity argument is misapplied -- parity is a doctrine that permits an accused to claim relief similar to a co-accused; it is not a doctrine that permits the prosecution to deny an accused relief merely because relief to the co-accused was denied. He emphatically submitted that the LOC has been in operation since 2023. It may be noted that the chargesheet has been filed in FIR No. 88/2021 recently, after filing of this revision petition, i.e., nearly four-year-old FIR. He cited Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration (supra), the Atul Punj v. Union of India, W.P.C. 9372/2024 (07.01.2025), and Vikas Chaudhary (supra) in support.
7. FINDINGS 7.1. On Maintainability: This Court is conscious of the preliminary objection taken by Respondent No. 2 that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and hence not amenable to revision under Sections 438-440 of the BNSS. While it has been held by some courts that an order cancelling an LOC is purely interlocutory and does not determine any final right, this Court, respectfully, is of the view that an order impinging upon the DLND010003542026 Page 13 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution, and relating to the liberty of the person, cannot be treated as a mere procedural or interlocutory order in the strict sense. Moreover, in the present case, the Revisionist is a complainant, and the revision lies at the instance of a party aggrieved by an order of the subordinate court. This Court, therefore, shall proceed to examine the matter on merits, albeit with the restraint appropriate to a revisional Court.
7.2. On the Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction: It is a well-settled principle of law that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 438-440 BNSS (erstwhile Sections 397-399 Cr.P.C.) does not sit as a Court of appeal. The revisional Court does not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for a plausible view taken by the court below. Interference is warranted only where the order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, material irregularity, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that revisional Courts must exercise their powers sparingly and with circumspection. The threshold for interference is high, and the mere fact that the revisional Court might have taken a different view is not sufficient ground for interference. Bearing this principle in mind, I proceed to examine the grounds raised. 7.3. On the Legal Framework Governing Look Out Circulars
(a) The legal framework governing the issuance and continuation of LOCs is now well-settled. The genesis lies in the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memoranda, the most recent being the consolidated OM dated 22.02.2021 ("the 2021 OM"), which governs the issuance of LOCs in DLND010003542026 Page 14 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
India. Clause 6H of the 2021 OM provides that recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. Clause 6L provides that in exceptional cases, where the departure of a person would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security, strategic or economic interests of India, or would result in potential acts of terrorism, LOCs may be issued even in non-cognizable matters.
(b) The authoritative judicial pronouncement on this subject is the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699, which has been reproduced, followed and applied in a multitude of subsequent decisions, including by the Delhi High Court in Rana Ayyub v. Union of India (2022), Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India (2022), and by the Calcutta High Court in Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration (2023).
(c) As laid down in Sumer Singh Salkan, the conditions for issuance/subsistence of an LOC are:
Recourse to LOC can be taken by the investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures AND there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. This is a conjunctive test -- all three elements must co-exist: (i) deliberate evasion of arrest/court process; (ii) non-compliance with coercive measures such as NBWs; and (iii) likelihood of fleeing the country.DLND010003542026 Page 15 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026
Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
7.4. On the Application of the Legal Framework to the Present Case
(a) The first, and most fundamental, question is whether the conditions laid down in Sumer Singh Salkan are met in the present case.
(b) On the first element -- deliberate evasion of arrest -- it is an admitted position on record that Respondent No. 2 was never arrested in FIR No. 88/2021 or in any of the other five FIRs. The IO chose to proceed under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and issued a notice for appearance, under which the accused co-operated. Section 41A Cr.P.C. is issued precisely when the IO records satisfaction that custodial arrest is unnecessary -- a statutory acknowledgment that the accused is neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence. As correctly held by the Ld. ACJM, it is wholly inconsistent for the State to contend on one hand that Section 41A was adequate to secure the accused's co-operation, and on the other, that an LOC was simultaneously necessary to prevent him from fleeing. The IO's conduct is, as the Ld. ACJM rightly observed, self-contradictory.
(c) On the second element -- non-compliance with coercive measures such as NBWs -- it is unambiguously established on record that not a single bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant, or proclamation has ever been issued against Respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 88/2021 or in any of the other FIRs referred to by the IO. As rightly noted in Prashant Bothra (supra): "There is no issuance of NBW at all in the present case or even warrant, for that matter. Clause 4(a) of the Office Memorandum clearly envisages that there has to be a cognizable offence where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in a Trial Court DLND010003542026 Page 16 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
despite NBW and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. None of the said criteria are met in the present case."
(d) On the third element -- likelihood of fleeing -- the mere fact that the accused has family members residing abroad, or that allegations against him are of a serious economic nature, does not by itself constitute material demonstrating a likelihood of evasion. As the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed in Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India (2022): "the issuance of a LOC necessarily curtails the rights of an individual to travel abroad and therefore, I am of the view that for invocation of this Clause, which, in any event, is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances, a mandatory pre-condition would be a formation of a reasonable belief by the originating authority that the departure of an individual would be detrimental to the economic interests of India to such an extent that it warrants curtailment of an individual's fundamental right to travel abroad."
(e) In the present case, the reply filed by Investigating Agency-- merely recites that the accused is involved in the captioned FIRs and investigation is going on. This bare recitation of involvement and pendency of investigation is manifestly insufficient. It does not disclose any specific material demonstrating that Respondent No. 2 was, at the time of opening the LOC, deliberately evading investigation, not appearing despite coercive measures, or exhibiting any concrete conduct indicative of an intent to flee. The Ld. ACJM was therefore correct in DLND010003542026 Page 17 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
holding that the communication was not in conformity with the prescribed proforma, and that the reasons therein were superficial. Accordingly, there was no valid legal basis for the LOC at its inception.
7.5. On the Ground of Parity -- Whether Applicable Against the Accused
(a) The Revisionist has primarily argued that the Ld. ACJM violated judicial discipline and the principles of parity by allowing Respondent No. 2's application when the identical application of co-accused Getamber Anand and Poonam Anand was dismissed by the coordinate bench on 13.09.2024.
(b) This ground, though argued with conviction, proceeds on a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of parity in criminal jurisprudence. Parity is a doctrine that operates in favour of the accused, not against him. It enables a co-accused who is similarly situated to claim the same relief as that which has been extended to another accused. Parity is a shield in the hands of the accused, not a sword in the hands of the prosecution. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aminuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the mere fact that bail was granted to one co- accused does not entitle another co-accused to claim parity, but importantly, where bail has been refused to one accused, the refusal cannot mechanically operate as a ground to reject the application of another co-accused -- the facts and circumstances of each accused fall to be independently considered.
DLND010003542026 Page 18 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
(c) In the present context, the doctrine of parity in the context of bail (or LOC cancellation) operates as follows: if a benefit is extended to an accused, a co-accused may seek parity to obtain a similar benefit if he is similarly placed. The converse, however, does not follow: the fact that relief was denied to one accused does not, ipso facto, preclude another co-accused from obtaining relief if, upon an independent examination of his circumstances, the criteria for such relief are satisfied.
(d) In the present case, the coordinate bench's order dated 13.09.2024 dismissed the LOC cancellation application of Getamber Anand and Poonam Anand by relying upon specific facts referable to those accused persons: the contempt proceedings, the personal insolvency proceedings of Getamber Anand, deep stakes, and the conduct of the primary accused in the case. The Ld. ACJM, while being cognizant of the coordinate bench's order, correctly proceeded to independently examine whether the conditions for continuation of the LOC against Respondent No. 2 were satisfied as against his specific conduct and circumstances. This is not a violation of judicial discipline -- this is the correct exercise of judicial discretion.
(e) Judicial discipline requires a subsequent court to give due weight to the earlier order and the reasons therein, and to not depart from it without recording a reasoned basis for doing so. However, it does not require mechanical rejection of the application of one accused merely because the application of a co-accused was rejected, particularly where the DLND010003542026 Page 19 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
factual basis of the earlier order was specific to that co-accused. The Ld. ACJM has recorded reasons -- namely, the absence of deliberate evasion, the issuance of Section 41A notice, the lack of coercive measures, and the absence of compliance with the prescribed format for LOC -- which are materially specific to Respondent No. 2. This is not a case of "forum hunting" or arbitrary departure from a coordinate bench's order; it is a reasoned and fact-specific determination. The parity argument of the Revisionist, therefore, is legally untenable and merits no further consideration.
7.6. On the Indispensability of a Time-Frame and the Perpetuity of the LOC
(a) This is, in the considered opinion of this Court, the most significant legal issue arising in the present revision, and one that calls for detailed examination.
(b) An LOC is not a routine investigative tool to be deployed as a matter of course upon the registration of every FIR. It is an extraordinary and coercive measure which directly restricts one of the most fundamental freedoms recognised by the Constitution -- the right to travel abroad, which is an integral component of personal liberty under Article 21. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, (Civil Appeal 3802/19 dated 09.04.2019) "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life -- marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right."
DLND010003542026 Page 20 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
(c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, has laid down that no fundamental right, including the right to travel, can be impinged upon by State action without following a just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by law.
(d) Now, the question that this Court must answer is: can an LOC remain operative in perpetuity, without the investigation culminating into the filing of a chargesheet, thereby permanently depriving a citizen of his fundamental right to travel abroad? In my considered opinion, drawing on over two decades of judicial experience and a careful reading of the Constitution and the authorities cited before me, the answer is an emphatic No.
(e) An LOC is opened for a specific and defined purpose -- to prevent the accused from fleeing the jurisdiction in order to evade investigation or trial. Once opened, its raison d'être is the ongoing investigation and the necessity of securing the accused's presence. However, if the investigation, goes on for years altogether, the very purpose for which the LOC was opened -- viz., to secure the accused's presence for the purpose of an investigation -- must be critically re-examined.
(f) In the present case, FIR No. 88/2021 was registered in June 2021. The chargesheet was filed nearly after five years have elapsed of *** filing of present revision petition. The IO has, in every single proceeding and reply, described the investigation as being at a "concluding" or "advanced" or "crucial" stage and finally filed the chargesheet just few days ago. The investigation has proceeded from year to year.
DLND010003542026 Page 21 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
(g) As was astutely observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Nanda v. Union of India, [WP(C) 10629/2009 dated 05.03.2010] cited in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra):
"...This cannot be an opinion formed at one point in time. The public interest element will vary depending on the stage of the investigation. It cannot be said that as long as the investigation is not complete, it is not in public interest to release a passport. That would be giving too wide a power to the authority..." [Suresh Nanda Judgment]
(h) The same logic applies, with even greater force, to a situation where the investigation goes on for years altogether. An accused person cannot be made to surrender his fundamental right to travel abroad indefinitely, at the unbounded discretion of the investigating agency, with no end in sight.
(i) Moreover, this Court notes that the curtailment of a fundamental right must satisfy the test of proportionality, as repeatedly enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of Constitution Bench decisions.
Proportionality requires not merely that the measure has a legitimate aim, but also that it is necessary and that the harm caused to the right- holder is proportionate to the benefit sought. An LOC which has operated for well over a year since Respondent No. 2 became aware of it, fails the test of proportionality and becomes constitutionally unsustainable.
(j) Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that the restriction of personal liberty must be by procedure established by law -- a procedure that is just, fair, and not arbitrary. There is no provision in law -- not in the Cr.P.C., not in the BNSS, not in any statute or Office Memorandum --
DLND010003542026 Page 22 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
that authorises an LOC to continue in perpetuity. The 2021 OM itself does not authorise an open-ended LOC. The absence of such a legal provision renders the perpetual continuance of the LOC in this case contrary to Article 21.
7.7. On the Non-Consideration of Conduct and the Misrepresentation Ground:
This Court has carefully examined the ground of misrepresentation taken by the Revisionist to the effect that Respondent No. 2 falsely stated before the Ld. ACJM that he was not an accused in the FIRs referred to by the IO. On perusing the impugned order and the record, this Court finds that the Ld. ACJM recorded a finding that the accused "is not an accused in the FIRs mentioned in Para 5 of the reply of the IO" based on the submission of his counsel -- a submission that was apparently disputed by the complainant's counsel. However, even if Respondent No. 2 was an accused in FIR No. 61/2021, that does not alter the fundamental legal position: no warrant has been issued against him in that FIR, and his conduct in that FIR was also cooperative. The misrepresentation, even if established, is not of such a character as to fundamentally vitiate the impugned order or to change the legal conclusion, namely, that the conditions in Sumer Singh Salkan for subsistence of the LOC are not met.
7.8. On the Section 41A versus LOC Issue: The Revisionist has argued that the Ld. ACJM erred in treating compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. as an automatic bar to an LOC. This Court has carefully considered this argument.
The submission is that the threshold for arrest is higher than the threshold for an LOC, and therefore the IO's choice to proceed under Section 41A does not DLND010003542026 Page 23 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
logically preclude an LOC. This argument, viewed in isolation, is not without some intellectual merit. However, the argument must be viewed in context. The Section 41A notice is issued precisely when the IO is of the view -- a statutory satisfaction -- that the accused need not be arrested. When the IO simultaneously contends that the accused is a flight risk necessitating an LOC, without any material to support that flight risk beyond the pendency of the FIR, the self-contradiction is manifest. The conduct of the IO in choosing Section 41A over arrest over a period of years is strong evidence that, at the relevant time of opening the LOC, there was no genuine apprehension of flight. The Ld. ACJM was therefore correct in drawing the inference that the State cannot simultaneously maintain two inconsistent positions.
8. CONCLUSION Upon a comprehensive examination of the impugned order, the grounds of revision, the reply, the arguments of both sides, the applicable law, and the specific circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the following opinion:
8.1. The impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Ld. ACJM is a well-
reasoned and judicious order, correctly applying the binding precedents governing issuance and continuation of LOCs. It does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice that would warrant interference in revision. 8.2. The conditions laid down in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 which are the legally settled prerequisites for issuance/subsistence of an LOC -- are conspicuously absent in the present DLND010003542026 Page 24 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
case. Respondent No. 2 was never arrested, never evaded process, and never failed to co-operate. Not a single coercive measure such as a bailable warrant, NBW, or proclamation was ever issued against him. 8.3. An LOC cannot be kept open in perpetuity. The FIR in question was registered in 2021 and chargesheet has been filed just recently, i.e., five years later. The LOC, opened for the specific purpose of securing the accused's presence during investigation, has outlasted the legitimate purpose for which it was issued. A citizen cannot be made to indefinitely surrender his fundamental right to travel abroad, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, at the unbounded pleasure of an investigating agency.
8.4. The argument of parity is legally misconceived in the manner in which it has been urged. Parity enures to the benefit of the accused -- it enables a co-accused to seek similar relief. It does not operate adversely to deny relief to one accused merely because relief was denied to another co- accused, particularly where the facts and circumstances are not identical and where the Ld. ACJM has applied an independent mind to the specific facts of Respondent No. 2.
8.5. The impugned order does not violate judicial discipline. The Ld. ACJM was conscious of the coordinate bench's order dated 13.09.2024 and considered it -- but correctly distinguished it on the individual facts of Respondent No. 2, which was entirely in accordance with the law. A subsequent court is not precluded from taking a different view based on different facts; it is only required to give due weight to the earlier order and DLND010003542026 Page 25 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026 Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
distinguish it, if it chooses to deviate, by assigning reasons -- which the Ld. ACJM has done.
8.6. Even otherwise, even if it were to be assumed that the impugned order suffered from some infirmity, this revisional Court would be slow to interfere with an order that correctly upholds the fundamental right of a citizen against the arbitrary and indefinite exercise of an extraordinary coercive power by the State.
8.7. For all these reasons, this Revision Petition deserves dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Ld. ACJM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in FIR No. 88/2021, PS EOW, directing the deletion of the LOC opened against Respondent No. 2 Mr. Vipul Maheshwari, is hereby upheld. 8.8. It is, however, made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or on the guilt or innocence of Respondent No. 2 in any of the pending FIRs. All questions of fact and law remain open before the trial court. 8.9. It is further clarified that as the chargesheet now stands filed and the matter is pending trial, in the event Respondent No. 2 fails to co-operate in the future, it shall be open to the investigating agency to make a fresh application before the competent court for opening of a fresh LOC, supported by specific material demonstrating flight risk and non- cooperation, in accordance with the prescribed legal framework.
9. ORDER 9.1. Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2026 is DISMISSED.
DLND010003542026 Page 26 of 26 Cr Rev 14/2026Dalmia Family Office Trust Vs. State & Anr.
9.2. The impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by Ld. ACJM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in FIR No. 88/2021, PS EOW, is UPHELD. 9.3. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated 9.4. TCR, if any, be returned to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of the judgment.
9.5. File be consigned to Record Room.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH
14th day of March, 2026 LALER
Date: 2026.03.14
17:35:18 +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts Delhi
14.03.2026