The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed that detention at an airport based on a secret Look Out Circular (LOC), without disclosure of its origin, validity, or grounds, constitutes a grave violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. This judgment sets a critical precedent against executive overreach in restricting international travel without procedural fairness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Garlapati Kusuma, an Indian national and engineering graduate employed in Canada since 25.08.2019, was detained at Hyderabad Airport on 25.12.2025 while attempting to return to Canada via Doha. She was stopped on the pretext of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by Respondents 1 to 7, but no copy, issuing authority, date, validity period, or reason was provided to her. The detention occurred after she had completed all immigration formalities and had her passport stamped for departure.
Key Facts
- The petitioner married Pradeep Chandra Talasila (son of Respondent No.8) on 03.08.2022 in Hyderabad, following an earlier informal registration on 14.08.2019.
- On 18.07.2022, a loan of Rs.95,00,000/- was sanctioned by IndusInd Bank, with the petitioner, Pradeep Chandra Talasila, and T. Padmavathi (Respondent No.8’s daughter-in-law) as co-borrowers.
- Respondent No.8 executed a Memorandum of Understanding (Deed No.9665 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022) to secure the loan using his property as collateral.
- The entire loan amount was utilized by Respondent No.8 and his family for property purchases, marriage expenses, and gold acquisition.
- The petitioner repaid approximately Rs.18,00,000/- towards the loan installments until January 2024.
- On 21.05.2023, the petitioner filed for divorce in Canada, which was dissolved by order dated 02.01.2025.
- On 03.05.2024, Respondent No.8 lodged a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (Crime No.412 of 2024), naming the petitioner as Accused No.4.
- No charge sheet has been filed as of the date of judgment.
- No notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner.
- IndusInd Bank declared the loan account as NPA on 20.11.2023 and issued notices under SARFAESI Act on 02.01.2024, 11.06.2025, and 24.06.2025.
- The petitioner returned to India on 15.11.2025 for her sister’s wedding and was scheduled to depart on 25.12.2025.
- Respondent No.8 filed a counter-complaint (Crime No.819 of 2024) on 22.08.2024 under Sections 85 and 77 IPC, alleging false accusations.
- The petitioner is employed in Toronto, Canada, and must report for work by 01.02.2026; failure to do so risks termination.
Procedural History
- 18.07.2022: Loan of Rs.95,00,000/- sanctioned by IndusInd Bank
- 03.08.2022: Marriage ceremony conducted in Hyderabad
- 21.05.2023: Divorce petition filed in Canada
- 03.05.2024: Crime No.412 of 2024 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC
- 20.11.2023: NPA declaration by IndusInd Bank
- 02.01.2024: SARFAESI Section 13(2) notice issued
- 11.06.2025: Notice issued by ARCIL under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act
- 24.06.2025: SARFAESI Section 13(4) notice for possession issued
- 22.08.2024: Crime No.819 of 2024 registered by Respondent No.8
- 12.06.2024 & 16.07.2024: Orders issued directing compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
- 15.11.2025: Petitioner arrives in India
- 25.12.2025: Petitioner detained at Hyderabad Airport without disclosure of LOC
- 12.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Telangana High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The LOC is arbitrary, undocumented, and issued without any judicial or statutory basis. She has no outstanding criminal liability, has cooperated with investigation, and has no pending non-bailable warrant. Her detention is punitive, retaliatory, and violates her right to travel and livelihood.
Respondents’ Position: The LOC is justified due to pending criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, alleged misrepresentation in loan application, and non-repayment. Respondent No.8 claims the petitioner was the primary borrower and defaulted, and that the LOC is a legitimate tool to prevent flight.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Declaration that her detention on 25.12.2025 was illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21
- Direction to Respondents 1 to 7 to permit her immediate travel to Canada
- Suspension of the LOC
- Costs of litigation
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the detention of a citizen at an international airport based on a secret Look Out Circular, without disclosure of its source, validity, or grounds, violates the fundamental rights to personal liberty and equality under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that any restriction on travel must be procedurally fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. He emphasized that the LOC was never communicated to the petitioner, no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued, and no charge sheet or non-bailable warrant existed. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that mere registration of an FIR does not justify restraint on liberty. He further contended that financial disputes, even if criminalized, cannot override constitutional rights absent due process.
For the Respondent
Counsel for Respondent No.8 argued that the petitioner was a co-borrower who defaulted on a substantial loan, misrepresented her financial position, and was named as an absconding accused in Crime No.412 of 2024. He contended that the LOC was a legitimate preventive measure under the Home Ministry’s guidelines to prevent flight of accused persons. He relied on the SARFAESI notices and NPA declaration to establish financial liability and claimed the petitioner’s refusal to repay justified the restriction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and legal basis of Look Out Circulars, noting they are administrative tools governed by Office Memorandums of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not statutory instruments. The Court held that while LOCs may be issued to prevent flight of accused persons, their use must conform to constitutional norms.
"The power to issue and act upon Look Out Circulars must conform to Office Memorandums of the Ministry of Home Affairs and cannot be exercised arbitrarily so as to infringe the right to travel which forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Court observed that the respondents failed to produce any document evidencing the issuance, validity, or grounds of the LOC. No notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. had been served on the petitioner, and no charge sheet had been filed. The Court distinguished between civil liability (loan default) and criminal liability (fraud or criminal breach of trust), noting that mere non-repayment does not automatically constitute an offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had submitted a detailed undertaking affidavit, providing her Canadian address, contact details, and willingness to cooperate with investigation and appear before courts upon notice. The record showed that the investigation had been pending for over a year without any formal charge sheet, and the petitioner had not been declared a proclaimed offender.
The Court rejected the argument that financial disputes alone justify indefinite travel restrictions, holding that such measures must be proportionate, time-bound, and accompanied by procedural safeguards. The absence of any judicial order, warrant, or formal charge rendered the LOC’s enforcement arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the detention on 25.12.2025 was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21. The Court directed Respondents 1 to 7 to permit the petitioner to travel to Canada immediately, subject to her furnishing her current Canadian address, contact number, and email to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.412 of 2024 and C.C. No. of 2025. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the concerned Court upon receipt of prior notice via electronic mode and shall fully cooperate with the investigation and trial. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
LOCs Cannot Be Used as Secret Detention Tools
- Practitioners must challenge any detention based on an undisclosed LOC as a per se violation of Article 21
- The burden lies on the state to produce the LOC, its issuing authority, date, validity, and grounds before any restraint is enforced
- Mere existence of an FIR or pending investigation is insufficient to justify travel restriction without a warrant or court order
Financial Disputes Do Not Automatically Justify Travel Bans
- Civil loan defaults, even when accompanied by SARFAESI proceedings, cannot be converted into criminal grounds for restricting liberty
- The use of LOCs to coerce settlement of private financial disputes is unconstitutional
- Courts must distinguish between civil remedies (recovery, attachment) and criminal restraint (arrest, LOC)
Procedural Compliance Under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Is Mandatory
- If an accused is not arrested at the time of FIR registration, Section 41-A Cr.P.C. requires notice before arrest
- Failure to issue such notice precludes the use of LOC as a substitute for due process
- Courts will not permit executive agencies to bypass statutory safeguards under Section 41-A by relying on LOCs
