LOCs Are Coercive Measures Interfering With Liberty, To Be Used Exceptionally Only When Accused Deliberately Evades Justice: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma observed,

“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”.

The petitioner, Aman Gehlot, was not named in the initial FIR filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2019. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which took over the case later, included him as an accused. While Gehlot cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the authorities whenever required, the CBI issued an LOC against him, effectively restricting his travel abroad.

Challenging the LOC, Gehlot argued that it infringed upon his right to personal liberty and free movement guaranteed by the Constitution. He highlighted that he had never evaded summons or arrest and was prepared to cooperate with the investigation.

Justice Sharma after scrutinizing the available record noted that LOCs are "coercive measures" with significant consequences for an individual's freedom. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director (2010) which laid down strict guidelines for issuing LOCs the bench emphasised that LOCs should only be used in exceptional circumstances, where there is a strong apprehension that the accused may abscond.

In Gehlot's case, the court found no such apprehension as he had consistently cooperated with the investigation, and there was no evidence to suggest he would flee the country.

“There is nothing in the reply filed by the respondent to put forth that the petitioner is evading arrest or not appearing before the Investigating Agency or summons have been issued and the petitioner has not appeared or there was any likelihood of the accused leaving the Country to evade arrest or trial…The trial of the case has been stayed in this case since 24.11.2022”, the court recorded.

Therefore, the court quashed the LOC with the condition to inform the CBI about his travel dates, itinerary, and destination addresses. The petitioner was also directed to refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Case Title: Aman Gehlot Vs V/s Anti-Corruption Bureau (Central Kashmir) & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Advocate with Mr. Arfat Rashid Lone, Advocate

Counsel For Respondents: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DGSI

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment