The petitioner argued before the court that the Look Out Circular (LOC) had been issued against him even though he had consistently appeared before the court and complied with legal proceedings. He contended that the circular prevented him from travelling outside India and rejoining his employment in Dubai despite being granted bail after furnishing the required sureties. According to him, the restriction imposed through the LOC directly affected his ability to resume work and amounted to an unjustified interference with his personal liberty and freedom of movement.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while examining the matter, expressed serious concern over what it described as the “mechanical” issuance of Look Out Circulars by investigating agencies in matrimonial cruelty cases. The court observed that such measures significantly restrict an individual’s personal liberty and are increasingly being issued without a proper assessment of whether the accused is cooperating with the investigation or deliberately attempting to evade arrest.
These observations were made by a bench led by Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy while setting aside an LOC that had been issued against a man who was detained at Visakhapatnam airport upon arriving from Dubai, where he is employed as an electrical technician. The petitioner had travelled to India specifically to attend court proceedings in a case filed by his estranged wife under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — corresponding to the earlier Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code — along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
During the hearing, the petitioner maintained that he had never attempted to avoid the legal process and had regularly appeared before the court whenever required. He argued that the issuance of the LOC, despite his cooperation, unfairly restricted his movement and prevented him from returning to his overseas employment even after securing bail. He further submitted that such action infringed upon his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the right to personal liberty.
In its order, the High Court emphasised that the opening of a Look Out Circular effectively curtails a person’s liberty, noting that LOCs are administrative instructions typically issued by police authorities either to secure the presence of an individual or to ensure cooperation with ongoing proceedings. However, the court observed that, in recent times, it has become increasingly common for police authorities to issue LOCs in cases registered under Section 498-A without carefully evaluating whether the accused is genuinely absconding or failing to cooperate, thereby resorting to a routine or mechanical approach.
The court further clarified that LOCs are justified and necessary in cases involving serious offences, large-scale financial irregularities, crimes affecting society at large, or matters that could potentially threaten national interests. At the same time, it cautioned that issuing such restrictive measures merely upon the registration of a matrimonial offence could have severe consequences for an accused individual’s livelihood and professional career, especially since matrimonial disputes frequently end in settlement or remain pending for extended periods before final adjudication.
Referring specifically to the facts of the case, the court observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not of a grave nature. It noted that preventing him from travelling abroad for employment due to the LOC would result in irreparable professional and financial loss. The bench emphasised that such decisions must be evaluated in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty.
Taking these factors into consideration, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ultimately set aside the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner, thereby restoring his ability to travel abroad and resume his employment while the legal proceedings continue.
