Section 35(3) BNSS | Mandatory Notice & Flight Risk Proof Required Before Issuing Look-Out Circulars Under Article 21: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the issuance and continuance of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) against an accused cannot be justified solely on the basis of multiple pending investigations, where there is no evidence of evasion or non-cooperation. The Court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be curtailed indefinitely without strict compliance with procedural safeguards.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sajjala Bharghav Reddy, a State Coordinator of a political party’s social media wing, is named as an accused in 14 criminal cases registered across multiple districts of Andhra Pradesh. These cases relate to the posting of abusive, morphed, and inflammatory content on social media platforms targeting the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, other public representatives, and their families, allegedly violating Sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The investigation into these offences is ongoing, with digital evidence, bank records, and technical data still being collected.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was first named as an accused in Crime No. 189/2024 registered at B. Kothakota U/G Police Station, Annamayya District, on 04.11.2024.
• On 07.11.2024, the Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District (13th respondent), requested the Bureau of Immigration to issue a Look-Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner.
• The LOC was issued by the Bureau of Immigration on 08.11.2024.
• In parallel, the petitioner filed Criminal Petitions in this Court seeking quashing of FIRs and anticipatory bail in multiple cases.
• On 07.05.2025, this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 8550 of 2024, directed the investigating officer to serve a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS (equivalent to Section 41-A of CrPC) as per Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
• As of the date of the judgment, no notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS had been served to the petitioner.
• The petitioner had been granted interim protection from arrest in all 14 cases, with stays extended until further orders.
• In Crime No. 263/2024 (Gudiwada), the LOC was withdrawn by the Bureau of Immigration on 26.02.2026 upon request from the originator.
• The petitioner’s whereabouts were known; he was actively participating in court proceedings and had not absconded.

Procedural History

• 04.11.2024: FIR registered in Crime No. 189/2024 at B. Kothakota U/G PS, Annamayya District.
• 07.11.2024: Request for LOC issued by Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District.
• 08.11.2024: LOC issued by Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs.
• 07.05.2025: High Court directs service of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS in Criminal Petition No. 8550 of 2024.
• 24.09.2025: Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS served in Crime No. 263/2024 (Gudiwada) - but not in Crime No. 189/2024.
• 16.12.2024: Stay of arrest granted in multiple cases, including Crime No. 189/2024.
• 17.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 6748/2026 decided by the High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• Argued that the LOC was issued without any attempt to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.
• Contended that he had consistently cooperated with the judicial process, appeared before courts, and obtained interim protection from arrest.
• Asserted that the LOC was arbitrary, violative of Article 21, and issued without satisfying the conditions laid down in MHA guidelines.
• Highlighted that no material on record showed he was evading investigation or had any intention to abscond.

For the Respondents

• Stated that the petitioner was involved in multiple serious offences involving social media abuse and incitement.
• Claimed that the LOC was necessary to ensure his presence during investigation, as his whereabouts were allegedly unknown.
• Argued that the LOC was issued in accordance with MHA guidelines and was a legitimate investigative tool.
• Maintained that withdrawal of LOC was at the discretion of the originating agency and not subject to judicial interference.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Declaration that the LOC issued on 08.11.2024 was arbitrary, illegal, malafide, and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
• Direction to the respondents to immediately withdraw and delete the LOC.
• Suspension of the LOC’s operation pending final disposal of the writ petition.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the issuance and continuance of a Look-Out Circular against an accused, who has been granted interim protection from arrest and against whom no notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been served, violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when there is no evidence of evasion or non-cooperation.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that the right to travel abroad is a protected facet of personal liberty. He emphasized that the MHA guidelines require a clear showing of deliberate evasion or likelihood of absconding before an LOC can be issued. He pointed out that the investigating agency had failed to serve the mandatory notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, which is a prerequisite to invoking coercive measures. He further cited Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India to assert that presumption of innocence and proportionality must govern state action. The petitioner argued that the LOC was being used as a tool of harassment, not investigation.

For the Respondent

The respondents contended that the petitioner’s involvement in 14 criminal cases involving hate speech and digital defamation posed a serious threat to public order and dignity of public figures. They argued that the LOC was issued under Clause 6(J) and 6(L) of the MHA guidelines, which permit such measures in cases involving multiple offences and potential threats to national interest. They claimed that the petitioner’s social media role made him a key conspirator, and his cooperation was suspect. They further argued that the Bureau of Immigration was merely a custodian and had no discretion to withdraw the LOC without a request from the originating agency.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed review of the MHA guidelines dated 22.02.2021 and relevant precedents, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Vineet Gupta v. Union of India. The Court observed that the issuance of an LOC is a coercive measure that directly impacts the fundamental right to travel, which is an essential component of personal liberty under Article 21.

"Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court noted that the MHA guidelines require that an LOC may be issued only when there is specific, tangible material indicating that the accused is deliberately evading arrest or is likely to abscond. In this case, the petitioner had been granted interim protection from arrest in all 14 cases, and the Court had specifically directed the police to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS - a step that remained unfulfilled. The Court found no evidence that the petitioner had failed to appear, avoided summons, or attempted to leave the country.

The Court further held that the mere pendency of multiple investigations does not justify an LOC. The originating agency, the Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District, had not conducted any quarterly or annual review of the LOC as mandated under Clause 6(J) of the guidelines. The Court rejected the claim that the petitioner’s whereabouts were unknown, noting that he was actively litigating in multiple courts and had provided addresses for service.

The Court emphasized that the burden lies squarely on the originating agency to justify the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the LOC. In the absence of such justification, the continuance of the LOC amounted to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty.

The Verdict

The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed:

• The petitioner to furnish his current address, mobile number, and email ID to the State Public Prosecutor by 5:00 p.m. on the date of judgment.
• The State Public Prosecutor to transmit these details to the Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District (Respondent No. 13) and the Bureau of Immigration (Respondent No. 3).
• Respondents No. 5 and 13 to serve the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS on the petitioner within seven days.
• The petitioner to file an undertaking by affidavit within two days, affirming his willingness to cooperate fully with investigations and appear before authorities as required.
• Upon receipt of the undertaking, Respondent No. 13 shall recall the LOC immediately.
• Respondent No. 3 shall delete the LOC from its records within 48 hours of receiving the recall request. There shall be no order as to costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

LOC Cannot Be a Substitute for Due Process

• Practitioners must now argue that the issuance of an LOC without serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is procedurally defective and violates Arnesh Kumar.
• Courts will scrutinize whether the investigating agency has exhausted less intrusive measures before resorting to an LOC.
• Mere pendency of multiple cases is insufficient; there must be concrete evidence of evasion or flight risk.

Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

• Originating agencies must conduct quarterly and annual reviews of LOCs as mandated under MHA guidelines - failure to do so renders continuance unlawful.
• The Bureau of Immigration acts only as a custodian; it cannot independently assess the necessity of an LOC.
• Courts will not tolerate indefinite LOCs based on speculative or prolonged investigations.

Right to Travel Is a Constitutional Imperative

• Any restriction on international travel must be narrowly tailored, proportionate, and time-bound.
• The burden of proof lies entirely on the State to demonstrate why an LOC is necessary - not on the individual to prove why it is not.
• Petitioners in similar cases may now invoke Maneka Gandhi and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal to challenge LOCs as disproportionate restraints on liberty.