Topic
A Look Out Circular (LOC) is a travel restriction issued by Indian law enforcement agencies to prevent individuals suspected of offenses from leaving the country, often under the Code of Criminal Procedure or specific statutes like the Companies Act, 2013.
The Delhi High Court quashed a Bank of Baroda Look Out Circular after the CBI completed its investigation, holding that an LOC cannot be maintained merely because trial is pending and affects individuals facing travel restrictions during trial.
The Delhi High Court upheld a Look Out Circular restraining a garment exporter, holding that review is confined to the circular's legality and a reasonable belief of economic loss, not the adequacy of the underlying material. This narrows judicial scrutiny of LOCs, impacting exporters and others subject to travel bans under the economic-interest clause.
Bombay High Court allows a 69-year-old Chartered Accountant to travel abroad for family visits, despite Look-Out Circulars issued by banks, subject to strict conditions including prior criminal court permissions. The ruling underscores the balance between enforcement of financial institutions' rights and the personal liberties of senior citizens facing non-conviction proceedings.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Look-Out Circular cannot be issued without serving mandatory notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and proving a genuine flight risk. This decision anchors the right to travel as an essential facet of Article 21, setting a new procedural guardrail against arbitrary immigration restrictions by investigative agencies.
Bombay HC allows temporary suspension of a Look-Out Circular to enable travel for a son’s graduation, balancing personal liberty with financial investigation concerns. The ruling establishes strict compliance conditions, including bank guarantees and return undertakings, as a precedent for proportionality in LOC cases.
Telangana High Court ruled that imposing travel restrictions via a Look Out Circular (LOC) without disclosing its existence to the petitioner violates constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. The court permitted the petitioner to travel to Canada upon cooperation with the investigation, emphasizing procedural fairness and transparency in state-imposed restrictions.
Bombay HC permits senior citizens (aged 77 and 78) to travel to the US despite an LOC issued by Bank of Baroda, imposing strict conditions including property disclosure, itinerary compliance, and return undertakings. The ruling sets a precedent for balancing travel rights of elderly individuals against financial institution concerns, reinforcing judicial discretion in LOC suspensions for humanitarian grounds.
Bombay High Court quashes LOC against 89-year-old petitioner, holding that cooperation, non-arrest, and lack of absconding risk nullify restrictive measures under Article 21.
High Court of Telangana grants conditional suspension of LOC for business travel, emphasizing compliance with court-imposed obligations and non-arbitrary detention.
Bombay High Court holds that right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute when petitioner has defaulted on massive debts, absconded from foreign jurisdiction, and shown no bonafide intent to repay.
Calcutta High Court upholds Look Out Circular against petitioner who evaded summons, settled in China, and failed to submit documents in a Rs. 215 crore fraud case under Companies Act, 2013.