LOC Can’t Be Issued In Routine Manner, Mere Suspicion Of Not Returning To India After Travel No Basis To Deny Permission To Travel Abroad: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere suspicion of an accused not returning to India, when the liberty granted to travel abroad has never been misused on earlier occasions, cannot be a basis to deny permission to travel abroad.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said that the issuance of a look out circular (LOC) is a coercive measure “aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency or a court of law.”

However, the court added that the power has to be used sparingly only in exceptional cases and that LOC is not to be issued in a routine manner “as it may affect the liberty of an accused.”

The court made the observations while granting permission to one Sandeep Singh Deswal to travel to USA. It also suspended the LOC issued against him with effect from February 10 to April 20.

“Mere suspicion of accused not returning to India after his travels when the accused has travelled abroad on numerous occasions and has never misused the liberty granted to travel abroad on earlier occasions, in my view, cannot be accepted as the basis for rejecting the present application,” it said.

Deswal had sought suspension of the operation of LOC to enable him to travel to USA along with his wife to celebrate their marriage anniversary with their son.

It was submitted on behalf of his counsel that Deswal had travelled abroad on ten occasions during pendency of a complaint against him. It was contended that even after registration of FIR, he had come back after travelling abroad on all occasions and cooperated in the probe as well.

However, the prosecution vehemently opposed the prayer of suspending the LOC and submitted that there was a strong apprehension that Deswal would misuse the liberty and may not come back to face the proceedings in relation to the chargesheet.

Granting relief to Deswal, the court said that it is a trite law that right to travel is a valuable fundamental right and should be curtailed only in exceptional circumstances.

“In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the main chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner without apprehending him and the Ld. Trial Court has also, summoned only two accused persons while the remaining three accused persons including the petitioner have not been summoned till date. Therefore, in my opinion, the case at hand does not fall within the purview of an exceptional circumstance,” it said.

Title: SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149

Click Here To Read Order