LOCs Issued Against Rhea Chakraborty And Family Members Without Disclosing Reason, Decision Not Reviewed As Per Guidelines: Bombay High Court
The LOCs issued against Rhea Chakraborty and her entire family in August 2020 after the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput did not state any 'reasons' for issuance of the same and neither were the LOCs reviewed as mandated under the Consolidated Guidelines, the Bombay High Court observed.The LOCs were issued against Rhea, her brother Showik, her father Lt. Colonel Indrajit Chakraborty, an...
The LOCs issued against Rhea Chakraborty and her entire family in August 2020 after the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput did not state any 'reasons' for issuance of the same and neither were the LOCs reviewed as mandated under the Consolidated Guidelines, the Bombay High Court observed.
The LOCs were issued against Rhea, her brother Showik, her father Lt. Colonel Indrajit Chakraborty, an army veteran, and her mother – Sandhya – who worked as a teacher in army schools. The LOCs were issued against them after Rajput's family filed an FIR to investigate his death in Patna and the matter was subsequently transferred to the CBI.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande observed while quashing the LOCs on Thursday, “LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only when there is/are reason/(s) to issue the same i.e. when a person deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court or for any other reason.”
The court underscored that the Chakrabortys had roots in society and had cooperated with investigators. Moreover, merely giving a gist of the FIR wasn't enough and the CBI should have provided proper reasons for making the request of issuance of LOC.
“Nothing was brought to our notice in the LOC, reflecting the `reason' for issuing of LOCs, except registration of an FIR and setting out the gist of the FIR, or for the continuance of the LOCs. As noted above, till date, no report has been filed by the CBI i.e. either charge-sheet or closure report,” The bench noted.
It further rejected the CBI's argument that the LOC's could be kept pending and the petitioners could always approach the court seeking permission to travel abroad.
“The LOC cannot be kept pending indefinitely, in this case for more than 3½ years, though the petitioners have cooperated with the investigation, which fact has not been disputed…the right to travel is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed except according to due procedure established by law," the court underscored.
While allowing the petitions by the Chakrabortys, the bench quoted its famous judgment in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, stating, "If the impugned order impounding the passport were violative of the right to freedom of movement or profession, it would constitute an unreasonable restriction."
The CBI had opposed the petitions questioning the court's jurisdiction. However, the bench ruled the pleas were maintainable as "part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai."
Rejecting the CBI's request to stay the order, the court said, "For the reasons stated in the judgment, the request for stay is rejected."
The court clarified it is open for agencies to issue fresh LOCs if the occasion arises in future against the petitioners.
Appearances - Mr. Ayaz Khan a/w Ms. Zahra Charania, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Prasanna Bhangale and Mr. Janay Jain for the Peititoners
Spl Public Prosecutor Kuldeep Patil, Shreeram Shirsat and others for the CBI
Case Title - Showik Indrajit Chakraborty vs The Addl. Superintendent of Police
Case No - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3135 OF 2023