NEW DELHI: Asserting that probe agencies should issue Look Out Circular (LOC) only in exceptional cases, the Delhi High Court has said that the LOC is not to be used in a routine manner as it may affect the liberty of an accused. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, while dealing with an accused’s plea seeking to go to the United States to meet his wife and son, also highlighted the right to travel, a valuable fundamental right that can be curtailed only in exceptional circumstances.
The court also said that mere suspicion of the accused not returning to India after his overseas visit cannot be accepted as the basis of rejecting his application, noting that the applicant has never misused the liberty granted to travel abroad on earlier occasions.
“The issuance of LOC is a coercive measure aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency and/or a court of law, however, this power has to be used sparingly only in exceptional cases and LOC is not to be issued in a routine manner as it may affect the liberty of an accused,” the order stated.
The court further pointed out that in the present case, it is an admitted position that the main chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner without apprehending him. It was averred that the 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,” the court said while referring the background of the case.The applicant’s counsel submitted that his client has not met his son for almost four years. He along with his wife wishes to celebrate their marriage anniversary with their son in the USA and wants to arrange marriage proposals for their niece.
He also argued that the petitioner has travelled abroad on ten occasions during the pendency of the complaint against him and also, after registration of FIR and on all occasions, he has come back and joined as well as cooperated in the investigation.
On the other hand, Public Prosecutor opposed the application, saying that the ground for travelling by the petitioner does not sound reasonable and there is strong apprehension that the petitioner would misuse the liberty and may not come back to face the proceedings. After going through the submissions, the court suspended the LOC issued against the applicant for traveling abroad with conditions.