PURNANGINI TREHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Judgment date: 2026-04-17

Case summary

High Court of Delhi judgment dated 2026-04-17. PURNANGINI TREHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

$~7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 91, 92, 93, 25, 27, 29, 31, 95, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 48, 49, 53, 56, 59, 61, 71, 72, 85 and 89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17. 04. 2026 IN THE MATTERS OF: 7 + W. P. (C) 17646/2022 and CM APPL. 5538/2023, CM APPL. 36789/2023 RITU SINGAL ..... Petitioner versus BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION& ORS. ... Respondents with 8 + W. P. (C) 17647/2022 NEERAJ SINGAL ..... Petitioner versus BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION& ORS. ..... Respondents 10 + W. P. (C) 1755/2023 and CM APPL. 6711/2023, CM APPL. 44687/2023, CM APPL. 44688/2023 KUNWER SACHDEV ..... Petitioner versus Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 1 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV UNION OFINDIAAND ORS. ..... Respondents 13 + W. P. (C) 7348/2023 and CM APPL. 28547/2023, CM APPL. 65247/2023 ARUPJYOTI RAI BARUAH ..... Petitioner versus BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, THROUGH COMMISSIONER (IMMIGRATION) & ORS. .....

Respondents 15 + W. P. (C) 7484/2023 and CM APPL. 37361/2023, CM APPL. 12331/2025, CM APPL. 28333/2025, CM APPL. 34618/2025, CM APPL. 44241/2025 RAGHU RAMA KRISHNA RAJU ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 17 + W. P. (C) 9610/2023 and CM APPL. 36814/2023, CM APPL. 15072/2026 SHIVANI PRIYAM& ANR. ..... Petitioners versus Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 2 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV UNION OF INDIA& ANR. ..... Respondents 18 + W. P. (C) 10895/2023 and CM APPL. 60224/2023, CM APPL. 74501/2024, CM APPL. 24992/2026, CM APPL. 24993/2026 ASHOK MITTAL ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent 91 + W. P. (C) 1942/2023 and CM APPL. 7375/2023, CM APPL. 16406/2023 MR. NISSCHAL JAAIN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 92 + W. P. (C) 1962/2023 and CM APPL. 7514/2023, CM APPL. 16835/2023 MR. NISSCHAL JAAIN .....

Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 93 + W. P. (C) 16550/2023 and CM APPL. 66691/2023 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 3 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV SANJAY LAMBA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 25 + W. P. (C) 7503/2024and CM APPL. 31297/2024 SENTHIL NACHIAPPAN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 27 + W. P. (C) 8252/2024 and CM APPL. 33976/2024 VINITA RANI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 29 + W. P. (C) 14518/2024 and CM APPL. 60811/2024 MANPREET SINGH CHADHA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 4 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 31 + W. P. (C) 16610/2024 and CM APPL. 15887/2025 ANIL BHALLA ..... Petitioner versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT& ANR. .....

Respondents 95 + W. P. (C) 18812/2025 and CM APPL. 78282/2025 DHARAMVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents 32 + W. P. (C) 1875/2025 GAURAV BHALLA ..... Petitioner versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. ..... Respondents 33 + W. P. (C) 950/2025 and CM APPL. 33832/2025, CM APPL. 2310/2026 GAUTAM BHALLA ..... Petitioner versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT& ANR. ..... Respondents Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 5 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 34 + W. P. (C) 549/2025 and CM APPL. 2490/2025 PURNANGINI TREHAN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 35 + W. P. (C) 1304/2025 and CM APPL. 14877/2026 SIDHANT GUPTA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .... Respondents 37 + W. P. (C) 3904/2025 and CM APPL. 18131/2025, CM APPL. 20275/2026 RAJEEV SRIVASTVA ..... Petitioner versus SERIOUS FRAUDS INVESTIGATION OFFICE AND ORS. ....

Respondents 38 + W. P. (C) 4065/2025 and CM APPL. 18907/2025 RISHI SEHDEV ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 6 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 39 + W. P. (C) 4612/2025 and CM APPL. 21352/2025, CM APPL. 6005/2026 SHRI HARISH SINGHAL ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS& ORS. ..... Respondents 44 + W. P. (C) 8859/2025 BALRAM SAINI& ORS. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR. ..... Respondents 48 + W. P. (C) 11461/2025 SANJEEV SRIVASTVA ..... Petitioner versus SERIOUS FRAUDS INVESTIGATION OFFICE& ANR. ..... Respondents 49 + W. P. (C) 11972/2025 PRIYA SRIVASTVA ..... Petitioner versus Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 7 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV SERIOUS FRAUDS INVESTIGATION OFFICE & ANR. ..... Respondents 53 + W. P.

(C) 15146/2025 and CM APPL. 69910/2025, CM APPL. 16892/2026 CHARANJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 56 + W. P. (C) 19065/2025 and CM APPL. 14847/2026, CM APPL. 20164/2026 GAURAV MUNJAL ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents 59 + W. P. (C) 1196/2026and CM APPL. 5863/2026 PREM ADIP RISHI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 61 + W. P. (C) 2799/2026 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 8 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV RATUL PURI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 71 + W. P. (C) 4066/2026 RATUL PURI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents 72 + W. P. (C) 4310/2026 NITA PURI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents 85 + W. P. (C) 5086/2026and CM APPL. 24964/2026 NITA PURI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents 89 + W. P.

(C) 5126/2026 and CM APPL. 25103/2026 RATUL PURI ..... Petitioner versus Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 9 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ..... Respondents Memo of Appearances: On behalf of petitioners: Mr. Manu Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Prachi Darji and Mr. Abhyuday Sharma, Advs. in W. P. (C) 1755/2023. Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Mr. Anshay Shandilya , Advocates in W. P. (C) 7348/2023. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Ms. Katyayani Vajpayee, Mr. Lakshay Yadav, Advs. in WP(C) - 10895/2023. Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sachin Midha, Mr. Aditya Vikram Bajpai, Advocates in W. P. (C) NO. 7503/2024. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Mr. Vishal Gourav, Mr. Yash Agrawal, Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Advocates in W. P. (C) 4310/2026 and W. P. (C) 5086/2026. Mr. Geetansh Bharti and Mr. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates in W. P. (C) 17646/2022. Mr.

Geetansh Bharti and Mr. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates in W. P. (C) 17647/2022. Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Advocate in W. P. 8252/2024. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Arjun Nanda & Mr. Hardeek Goyal, Advs. in W. P. (C) No. 14518/2024. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. , Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Adv. , Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr. AyushSachan, Adv. , Ms. Pooja Deepak, Adv. , Mr. Khush, Adv. Mr. SougatPati Ms. Rushika Patil Ms. Ria Yadav Mr. Nav Teji, Advs in WP(C) - 16610/2024. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr. AyushSachan, Ms. Pooja Deepak, Mr. Khush, Advocates in W. P. (C) No. 1875/2025. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. , Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr. AyushSachan, Ms. Pooja Deepak, Mr. Khush, Ms. Vismita Diwan, Advocates in W. P. (C) 950/2025. Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Sr. Adv. , with Mr. Anish Dewan, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocates in W. P. (C) 549/2025. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 10 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Manit Walia, Advs. in W. P. (C) No. 1304/2025. Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jaispriya Poly, adv. in W. P. (C) No. 3904/2025. Mr. Ashish Chauhan Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Advocates in W. P. (C) 4065/2025. Mr. Deepank Yadav, Adv. in W. P. (c) 4612/2025. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Arjun Nanda and Mr. Hardeek Goyal, Advs. in W. P. (C) No. 15146/2025. Mr. Bharat Chugh, Maj. Nirvikar Singh (Retd. ), Mr. Maanish Choudhary, Mr. Jai Allagh, Advs. in W. P. (C) No. 19065/2025. Mr. Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vikrant Suri, Mr. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai Adv, SohumDua Adv, Mr. Ghunaim Siddiqui, Ms. Manvi, Ms. Saloni Ray, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Advocates in W. P. C/2799/2026. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal and Ms Vishakha Kaushik, Advocates in W. P. (C) 16550/2023. Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Mr Praveen Chaturvedi, Ms Jyoti Chaturvedi and Mr Tarun Kumar, Advocates in WP(C) 18812/2025. Mr. Shubhendu Bhattacharyya and Mr.

ShubhitShokeen, Advocates in W. P. (C) 9610/2023, W. P. (C) 11461/2025 and W. P. (C) 11972/2025. Mr. VartulVishnoi, Mr. Nimish Chib Advocates in W. P. (C) 1942/2023 and W. P. (C) 1962/2023. Mr. ArshdeepSingh Khurana, Ms. Neha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. VishvendraTomar, Ms. NishthaJuneja, Mr. Sulakshan VS, Mr. Himanshu Kasturi, Ms. Shivani Sharma and Ms. Vidisha Bajaj, Advocates in W. P. (C) 1196/2026. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Mr. Vishal Gourav, Mr. Yash Agrawal, Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Advocates in W. P. (C) 5126/2026. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Mr. AyushSachan, Advocates in W. P. (C) 4066/2026. On behalf of respondents: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra Advocates in W. P. (C) 17646/2022. Mr. Rakesh Kumar SPC With Mr. Sunil, Advocates for UOI in Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 11 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV W. P. (C) 17646/2022. Mr Anupam S Sharrma with Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr Vashisht Rao &Ms Amisha P Dash, Advocates for CBI. in W. P. (C) 17646/2022 Mr Anupam S Sharrma with Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr Vashisht Rao & Ms Amisha P Dash, Advocates. in W. P. (C) 17647/2022. Mr. Rakesh Kumar SPC With Mr. Sunil, Adv. in W. P. (C) 17647/2022. Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra Advocates for R-1 in W. P. (C) 17647/2022. Mr. Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel, Ms. Asiya Khan, Mr. Nishchay Nigam and Ms. Niharika Tanwar Advocates for respondent/ Bank of Baroda in W. P. (C) 1755/2023. Mr. AkshitKapur, AoR along with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocate for R-3 in W. P. (C) 1755/2023. Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP CBI with Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Adv for Respondent- CBI in W. P. (C) 1755/2023. Mr RachitBigghe, Advocate for R-6 in W. P. (C) 1755/2023. Mr. VK Gupta Advocate for R-8 in W. P. (C) 1755/2023. Mr.

Brijesh k Tamber, Ms Chanchala Kumari, Advs for R-3 in WP(C) No. 7484/2023. Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC along with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate for UOI in WP(C) No. 7484/2023. Mr Anupam S Sharrma with Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr Vashisht Rao & Ms Amisha P Dash, Advocates for CBI in WP(C) No. 7484/2023. Mr. AkshitKapur, AoR along with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocate in WP(C) No. 7484/2023. Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC Ms. Kavya Shukla Adv. Mr. Vineet Negi Adv. Mr. Vibhav V. Nath Adv. Ms. Theresa Adv. in W. P. (C) 9610/2023. Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari CGSC & Mr Piyush Yadav, Adv. for UOI in WP(C) 7503/2024. Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha, Advocates for R-3 in WP(C) 7503/2024. Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. SachindraKarn, Advocates in in WP(C) 7503/2024. Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel counsel, GNCTD , Ms.

Purnima Jain Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 12 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV & Mr. Madhur, Advs. in WP(C) 8252/2024. Mr. Ripudamn Bhardwaj, CGSC,SPP, Mr. KushagraKansal, Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for CBI in WP(C) 8252/2024. Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, Adv. for R-3 in WP(C) 8252/2024. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. AyushTanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr. UjjwalTyagi. in W. P. (C)- 1875/2025. Mr. ChetanyaPuri, SPC along with Ms Vidhi Gupta and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advs. for R-1 and 2 in W. P (C) 549/2025. Mr Arun Aggarwal with Mr LoveleshKukreja, Advs. for R-3 in W. P. (C) 549/2025. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, ADV Mr. AyushTanwar, Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Adv, Mr. UjjwalTyagi, Advocates in W. P. (C)-1304/2025. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv Mr. AyushTanwar, Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Adv, Mr.

Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocates for SFIO in W. P. (C) 3904/2025 and W. P. (C) 11461/2025. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. AyushTanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik and Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs. for UOI in W. P. (C) 4065/2025. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms. Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC for R-2 in W. P. (C) 4065/2025. Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for Central Bank of India in W. P. (C) 4066/2026. Mr. Sanjay Bajaj and Mr. Rajat Prakash, Advocates for R-4 and 5 in W. P. (C) 4066/2026. Mr Ishkaran Singh Bhandari CGSC and Mr Piyush Yadav, Adv. forUOI in WP(C) 4612/2025. Mr Arun Aggarwal with Mr LoveleshKukreja, Advs for R-4 in WP(C) 4612/2025. Mr. Shlok Chandra Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms Naincy Jain Jr Standing Counsel, Ms Madhavi Shukla Jr Standing Counsel ,Mr. Udit Dad, Advocates in WP (C) No. 8859/2025. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, GP, Ms. Khyaati, Advs. in WP(C) 11972/2025. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC and Ms.

Maanya Saxena, Advocate in Wp(c) 15146/2025. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 13 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv(CGSC)(UOI), Mr. Akshit Mohan, Advocates (GP), Mr. Shashwat, Advocates in WP(C) 19065/2025. Mr Premtosh K Mishra CGSC, Mr Shrey Sharma Adv, Mr Anubhav Upadhyay Adv, Mr Arpit Bamal, Advocates in W. P. (C)1196/2026. Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC Indian Bank And BOB for R-2 and 3 in W. P. (C)1196/2026. Ms. Nidhi Ramam CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for UOI in W. P. (C) 2799/2026. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel for R-4 in W. P. (C) 2799/2026. Ms. Arushi Singh (SPC for UOI) with Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Amrisha Kumari & Mr. Abhinav Vijayaran, Advocates for R 1 to 3 in W. P. (C) 4310/2026. Mr. Sanjay Bajaj and Mr. Rajat Prakash, Advocates for R-5 in W. P. (C) 4310/2026. Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for the Central Bank Of India/ R-4 in W. P. (C) 4310/2026.

Mr Satya Ranjan Swain (CGSC) & Mr KautilyaBirat, Advocates for R-1 and 3 in W. P. (C) 5086/2026. Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms. Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha Advocates for R- 2/ Union Bank of India in W. P. (C) 5086/2026. Ms. Nidhi Ramam CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Akshamishra, Advs. in W. P. (C) 5126/2026. Mr. Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel with Ms. Asiya Khan, Mr. Nishchay Nigam and Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Advocates in W. P. (C) 5126/2026. Mr. Shashank Dixit Adv. CGSC , Mr. Kunal Raj Advocate for UOI in W. P(C)1942/2023. Mr. AkshitKapur, AoR along with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates for SBI in W. P(C)1942/2023. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. , UOI. in W. P. (C) - 18812/2025. Mr. Arkaj Kumar (SC), Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi Bhargav, Mr. Akshat Khanna, Mr. Karsh SaroshRebalo, Advocates for ED. in W. P.

(C) 16610/2024, W. P. (C) 1875/2025 and W. P. (C) 950/2025 Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. AyushTanwar, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 14 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi. Advocates for UOI in W. P. (C) 16610/2024. and W. P. (C) 950/2025 Mr. Mr. Vibhav V. Nath, Ms. Theresa, Advocates for UOI. in W. P. (C) 7348/2023 Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, Advocates for R-2 and 3 in W. P. (C) 7348/2023. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP CBI in in W. P. (C) 7348/2023. Mr. PiyushBeriwal and Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocates for UOI in W. P. (C) 16550/2023. Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha Advocates for Respondent/ Bank in W. P. (C) 16550/2023. Counsel (appearance not given) in W. P. (C) 14518/2024. Mr. Vipul Agrawal (Sr.

Standing Counsel), Ms. Sakshi Shairwal (Jr. Standing Counsel), Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan, Adv. , Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advocates for Revenue in WP(C) - 10895/2023. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Anand, Advocate for impleader in WP(C) - 10895/2023. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) INDEX A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND......................................... 17 B. THE LAW OF LOCS ........................................................................... 18 C. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 35 I. LOCS ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/BANKS ....................................................................... 35 (i) W. P. (C) 7348/2023 ......................................................................... 35 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 15 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV (ii) W. P. (C) 16550/2023 ...................................................................... 36 (iii) W. P. (C) 7484/2023 ....................................................................... 37 (iv) W. P. (C) 8252/2024 ....................................................................... 38 (v) W. P. (C)549/2025 ........................................................................... 38 (vi) W. P. (C) 1304/2025 ....................................................................... 39 (vii) W. P. (C) 7503/2024 ...................................................................... 41 (viii) W. P. (C) 4612/2025 ..................................................................... 42 (ix) W. P. (C) 4310/2026 AND 5086/2026 ............................................ 44 (x) W. P. (C) 4066/2026 AND W. P. (C) 5126/2026 ............................... 47 (xi) W. P.

(C) 1196/2026 ....................................................................... 49 II. LOCS ISSUED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES AND MINISTERIES ........................................................................................ 53 (xii) W. P. (C) 9610/2023, W. P. (C) 3904/2025, W. P. (C) 11461/2025 AND W. P. (C) 11972/2025 ................................................................... 53 (xiii) W. P. (C) 10895/2023 ................................................................... 54 (xiv) W. P. (C) 1942/2023 AND W. P. (C) 1962/2023 ............................ 55 (xv) W. P. (C) 950/2025AND W. P. (C) 16610/2024 .............................. 56 (xvi) W. P. (C) 8859/2025 ..................................................................... 57 (xvii) W. P. (C) 4065/2025 .................................................................... 58 (xviii)W. P. (C) 1875/2025 .................................................................... 59 (xix) W. P.

(C)19065/2025 .................................................................... 60 (xx) W. P. (C) 15146/2025 AND W. P. (C) 14518/2024 ......................... 61 (xxi) W. P. (C) 2799/2026 ..................................................................... 62 III. APPROPRIATINESS OF RELEGATING THE PETITIONER TO THE FORUM THAT ISSUED THE LOC ............................................... 65 (xxii). W. P. (C) 17646/2022 AND 17647/2022 .................................... 67 (xxiii) W. P. (C) 1755/2023 ................................................................... 69 (xxiv) W. P. (C) 18812/2025.................................................................. 70 D. CONCLUSION...................................................................................... 72 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 16 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.

This batch of petitions has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, all converging upon a single, pressing legal question, namely, whether the issuance and continuation of Look Out Circulars (hereinafter “LOCs”), a coercive executive measure directly imperilling the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, is legally sustainable in the circumstances evinced in each of these petitions. While the individual facts of each petition present their own discrete matrix, the overarching legal issues are common, and it is, therefore, appropriate to take up these petitions together for a comprehensive adjudication by this common judgment. 2. The present order disposes of 33 writ petitions concerning the validity, or the lack thereof, of the LOCs issued at the behest of financial institutions, investigative agencies, and govt. departments/authorities. The oldest petition in the present batch, namely, W. P. (C) 17646/2022 was instituted on 15. 12.

2022, and is getting disposed of, vide the present order, after a period of approximately 3. 5 years. The Court in the said petition has passed 23 interim orders, and on 3 occasions, the Court has passed orders allowing the petitioner‟s travel abroad. Cumulatively, in all the petitions combined about 612 orders have been passed, including approximately 110 orders where permission to travel abroad has been granted. Naturally, for the said orders, consequent orders/directions have also been passed by the concerned Registrar. In none of these cases have the petitioners absconded or fled from the country. Neither Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 17 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV has any attempt to do so been alleged, nor does any such material find place on record. 3.

These writ petitions have been categorised into three broad classes for the purposes of discussion, analysis, and disposal, namely: Category A — cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued solely at the instance of financial institutions; Category B — cases where the Look Out Circular has been issuedat the instance of ministries and investigating agencies; and Category C — cases where petitioner is relegated to the forum that issued LOC. Each category raises distinct, though interrelated, legal issues which shall be addressed in the appropriate sequence in this judgment. 4.

Comprehensive survey of the constitutional and statutory foundations governing the right to travel, the historical and regulatory evolution of the LOC regime in India, the relevant Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs („MHA‟), and the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts on the subject is imperative for laying down, in clear and unambiguous terms, the governing constitutional and legal principles that shall inform and guide the disposal of this batch of petitions. B. THE LAW OF LOCs 5. The Constitution of India, in its majestic sweep, guarantees to every person the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 18 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The right to travel both within the country and abroad, has been recognised as an integral and constitutionally protected facet of this fundamental guarantee. 6. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant 1 Passport Officer, the Supreme Court authoritatively declared that the right to travel abroad is a constitutionally protected right inhering in the concept of personal liberty under Article 21. Passport, being the instrument through which such right is exercised, it was held by the Court, that it cannot be withheld arbitrarily or without authority of law. 7. The constitutional dimensions of this right were elaborated and 2 crystallised in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Unequivocally, it was held that the procedure for depriving a person of his personal liberty must not be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable.

No person can be deprived of his right to travel abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him, and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. In toto, the said authority categorically rejected the notion that the guarantee of Article 21 can be satisfied by any procedure, however oppressive or unjust. The procedure must conform to the norms of natural justice, due process, fairness, and reasonableness. 8. In the sphere of foreign jurisprudence, the same constitutional 1 AIR 1967 SC 1836. 2 (1978) 1 SCC 248. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 19 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 3 sentiment finds expression in Kent v.

Dulles, where the United States Supreme Court recognised freedom of movement across frontiers as a vital incident of individual liberty, deeply embedded within the nation‟s constitutional heritage, emphasising its intimate connection with personal choice and human dignity. While this decision pertains to a different constitutional order, the values it articulates are of the inviolability of the freedom to travel as an attribute of personal liberty, and are universally shared and have resonance in the Indian constitutional framework. 9. The Constitutional framework, therefore, affirms that the right to travel abroad is not a mere statutory entitlement but a fundamental constitutional right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Any restriction on this right must satisfy the triple test enunciated in Maneka Gandhi: (i) it must be founded on a law duly enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) the procedure prescribed by such law must be just, fair, and reasonable; and (iii) the law and the procedure must not violate any of the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Executive action, even if authorised by administrative instructions, cannot be a substitute for legislative mandate when it comes to the possible curtailment of fundamental rights. 10. The concept of a Look Out Circular is not a creature of statute. It has its origins in executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The earliest instructions in this regard emanated from a letter issued by the MHA dated 05. 09. 1979, which authorised various 3 357 U. S. 116 (1958). Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 20 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV agencies to monitor the arrival and departure of Indian citizens as well as foreigners at immigration checkpoints. This early framework was essentially surveillance-oriented and did not specifically address the circumstances under which an LOC could be issued to prevent the departure of a person from the country. 11. A more structured and systematic framework was introduced by the Office Memorandum dated 27. 12. 2000 issued by the MHA, which was confined in its application to Indian citizens. This memorandum laid down guidelines for the issuance of LOCs but remained limited in its scope and did not fully address the procedural safeguards necessary for the protection of the fundamental right to travel. 12. A significant development in the jurisprudence governing LOCs occurred in 2010, when this Court, through coordinate benches, took up the question of the legal framework governing the issuance of 4 LOCs. In Vikram Sharma v.

Union of India, and more significantly 5 in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, the Court addressed a reference on the legal framework and answered several foundational questions governing the issuance of LOCs. 13. In Sumer Singh Salkan, the Court authoritatively held that an LOC can be issued only in cases involving cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) or other penal laws, and only where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing before the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants („NBWs‟) and 4 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475. 5 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 21 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV other coercive measures, and there was a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial or arrest.

The Court further held that: (A) an LOC may be issued in cognizable offences where the accused is deliberately evading arrest; (B) the Investigating Officer must make a written request to the competent officer, and only the competent officer can direct opening of an LOC by a speaking order; (C) the person against whom an LOC is issued must join investigation or surrender before the Court, or satisfy the Court that the LOC was wrongly issued, and may also approach the originating authority for withdrawal; and (D) an LOC is a coercive measure and the jurisdiction of subordinate courts in affirming or cancelling an LOC is commensurate with their jurisdiction in relation to NBWs. 14. In consonance with the judicial guidance provided by Sumer Singh Salkan, the MHA issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 27. 10. 2010, which confined the issuance of LOCs to cases involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal statutes.

Non-cognizable matters were restricted to intimation of travel movements only, and the person could not be detained or prevented from leaving. The 2010 OM also specified the category of persons/authorities who could make requests for opening an LOC, including Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of public sector banks, a provision which has subsequently been subjected to severe constitutional challenge, as detailed later in this judgment. 15. The MHA revisited and further refined the LOC regime through Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 22 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV the Office Memorandum dated 05. 12.

2017, which introduced a new category of exceptional cases, authorising the issuance of LOCs even in matters not involving cognizable offences, where the departure of a person was considered prejudicial to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, its bilateral relations, strategic or economic interests, or the larger public interest. Further modifications were effected by the Office Memoranda dated 19. 09. 2018 and 12. 10. 2018. It is important to emphasise that this exceptional category was introduced as a narrow, residual power to be exercised in truly exceptional circumstances and not as a general power to be routinely invoked. 16. In order to consolidate and streamline the LOC regime, the MHA issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 22. 02. 2021 (hereinafter “2021 OM”), which, in supersession of all earlier guidelines, presently governs the law with respect to the issuance of LOCs.

The 2021 OM is the primary regulatory instrument for the purposes of the present adjudication. The relevant provisions of the 2021 OM are as under: “(H) Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in column IV in the enclosed proforma regarding 'reason for opening LOC' must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained. (I) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC or other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases.

(L) In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (B) above, if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 23 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time. ” 17.

Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM included the Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks within the list of authorities who could make requests for the opening of an LOC. This provision, along with the equivalent clause in the 2010 OM, has been the subject of extensive constitutional litigation and has been found to be unconstitutional by the Bombay High Court, as discussed in the following section. 6 18. In Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration, the Madras High Court held that an LOC is a coercive executive measure which directly impinges upon personal liberty and, therefore, cannot be issued in a mechanical or routine manner. It was observed that under the governing guidelines, an LOC can be resorted only when there exists tangible material indicating deliberate evasion of arrest or a real likelihood of the individual fleeing the country.

The Court emphasised that the mere existence of a criminal case or investigation is not sufficient to justify the issuance of an LOC, there must be specific, credible material to demonstrate a real and proximate threat of absconding. 19. The most consequential judicial pronouncement for the 6 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 24 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV purposes of the present batch of petitions is the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah v. 7 Union of India, decided on 23. 04. 2024. The lead matter arose from a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the 2010 OM and the 2021 OM that enabled the Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of public sector banks to seek the issuance of LOCs against defaulting borrowers, thereby restraining their right to travel abroad. 20.

The petitioners in Viraj Chetan Shah contended that such executive instructions permitted a grave curtailment of personal liberty, a fundamental right under Article 21, without any statutory backing or prescribed procedural safeguard, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They urged that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty, and cannot be restricted by executive fiat, particularly in matters arising out of civil or commercial defaults. 21.

The Division Bench, upon a thorough consideration of the constitutional issues, held as follows: (i) the right to travel abroad is an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and any restriction upon it must be founded on law and must follow a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable; (ii) fundamental rights cannot be curtailed through executive instructions alone, in the absence of a governing statute or a controlling statutory framework; (iii) the Office Memoranda, viewed in their entirety, could 7 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 25 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV not be characterised as per se arbitrary or unconstitutional, so as to warrant their wholesale invalidation; however, (iv) the inclusion of Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks under Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM (equivalent to Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 OM) was held to be bad in law, being arbitrary and unreasonable, founded on an improper and invalid classification, and resulting in the conferment of uncanalised, unguided, and excessive power upon bank officials to seek restrictions on personal liberty without any statutory guidance or procedural safeguards. 22. It is further noted that a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India assailing the said decision; however, the order of the Bombay High Court has not been stayed, and, therefore, continues to hold the field. 23.

The decision in Viraj Chetan Shah was applied and followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sahil Chugh v. Union of 8 India. The Court held that an LOC issued at the behest of a public sector bank against borrowers or directors merely on account of loan default or declaration as wilful defaulters, in the absence of any criminal proceedings, is unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised that the expression “detrimental to the economic interests of India” under the MHA guidelines is meant for exceptional cases involving grave, systemic, or national economic impact, and not routine commercial defaults. Since no FIR, charge-sheet, or cognizable 8 2024:DHC:5203. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 26 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV offence was pending against the petitioner therein, and the disputes were purely civil and pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal („DRT‟), the Court quashed the LOC as arbitrary and disproportionate. 24. The judgment in Sahil Chugh was challenged before the 9 Division Bench of this Court in Bank of Baroda v. Sahil Chugh. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the single judge‟s conclusion.

The Division Bench held that: (i) the mere inability to repay a debt, without there being a criminal case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21; (ii) the term “detrimental to economic interest”requires a finding of grave and systemic impact on the national economy, not routine commercial default; (iii) the circumstances surrounding issuance of an LOC must reveal a higher gravity and a larger impact on the country; and (iv) in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah quashing the very power and jurisdiction of public sector banks to seek issuance of LOCs, there cannot be any restriction on the travel of respondents. 10 25. In Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India, this Court quashed an LOC issued at the instance of Bank of Baroda (“BOB”), holding that the LOC had been issued against the petitioner solely because of the inability of a company to repay its debts for which the petitioner stood as guarantor.

There were no criminal proceedings against the petitioner, and no allegation that the petitioner was 9 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9282. 10 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 27 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV instrumental in defalcation or siphoning off of money. The Court was emphatic that after the bank had already resorted to all remedies available in law, it could not open an LOC as an “arm-twisting tactic”to recover debt from a person who is otherwise unable to pay, more so when there were no allegations of fraud or siphoning. 11 26. In Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration, this Court laid down the important proposition that Look Out Circulars cannot be opened merely on the request of banks. There has to be some independent application of mind by the authority concerned before opening an LOC, since opening of an LOC results in restraining a person's right to travel abroad.

The authority opening the LOC must satisfy itself that the departure of the person would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to bilateral relations, or to the economic interests of India, or that departure of such person ought not to be permitted in the larger public interest. 12 27. In Shalini Khanna v. Union of India, this Court elaborated upon the term “detrimental to the economic interests”, and declared it to be of such a magnitude that it can significantly affect the economic interests of the country. The issuance of an LOC cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan defaults and that the fundamental right of a citizen to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan, especially where the person against whom the LOC is opened has not been arrayed as an accused in any offence for 11 2023:DHC:6886. 12 2024 SCC OnLine Del 837.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 28 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV misappropriation or siphoning. 13 28. In Anastasiia Pivtsaeva &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors. , this Court held that mere association or a familial relationship with an accused, absent any concrete material showing direct involvement or complicity in the alleged offence, cannot justify adverse action such as the denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive measures such as an LOC. This principle has direct bearing in cases where LOCs have been issued against persons based merely on their status as directors, guarantors, or family members of borrowers. 29. The jurisprudence in this area has been further consolidated and synthesised by a series of decisions of this Court. In Puja Chadha v. 14 Directorate of Enforcement, this Court, relying on Prashant Bothra 15 v. Bureau of Immigration, Dhruv Tewari v.

Directorate of 16 Enforcement, Sumer Singh Salkan; Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. 17 Union of India, and Anastasiia Pivtsaeva, held that the power to issue an LOC is an exceptional and coercive measure which has a direct bearing on an individual‟s fundamental right to travel, and therefore must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. In 18 Sandeep Dhanuka v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the LOC regime and its various facets, including the circumstances of issuance, continuation, 13 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170. 14 2025:DHC:8787. 15 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643. 16 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1893. 17 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587. 18 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8280. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 29 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV and judicial review. Importantly, in para. 19 and 20 the Court held as under: “19.

It is now a settled law that opening of an LOC has a very serious effect on a person's fundamental right to travel abroad which is on the face of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said right to travel cannot be curtailed without following due process. It is also settled law that recourse to LOC can be taken by the Investigating Agencies primarily when there is a cognizable offence under IPC or in any other penal laws or where the accused is deliberately evading the arrest and not appearing before Court despite summons being served on him or issuance of non- bailable warrants or when other coercive measures have been taken by the Court to ensure his appearance in the Court and that there is likelihood of the accused to leave the country to evade such trial or arrest. 20.

The LOCs are also being issued at the instance of Investigating Agencies where apprehension is raised by the Investigating Agencies that the person who is alleged of committing an offence might escape the clutches of law by leaving the country. However, the law is also getting crystallized that merely because there are some revenue implications, the LOC cannot be opened against a person. A Single Bench of this Court in Priya Parameswaram Pillai v. Union of Inidia [2015 VII AD (Delhi) 10] has held that merely because there were some revenue implications due to notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities, the violations of tax laws are not demonstrative of the fact that the Petitioner therein had acted inimical to the economic interests of the country”. 30.

It has been held by this Court in Brij Bhushan Kathuria, that an LOC has the effect of seriously jeopardising the right to travel of an individual, and that the settled legal position as per Sumer Singh Salkan is that unless and until there is an FIR lodged or a criminal case pending, an LOC cannot be issued. Phrases such as “economic interest” or “larger public interest” cannot be expanded to include an Independent Director who was in the past associated with the company being investigated, without any specific role being attributed to him. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 30 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 31. Most recently, this Court in Anant Raj Kannoria v. Union of 19 20 India &Anr. , Maria Ramesh v. Union of India &Ors. , and 21 RitwickDutta v. Union of India &Ors. , has examined various aspects of the legal framework governing the issuance of LOCs.

In Anant Raj Kannoria, this Court held as under: “23. In such circumstances, the continued restraint imposed upon the petitioner by way of the LOC operates as an unwarranted restriction on his personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21of the Constitution without any contemporaneous justification. The mechanical continuation of the LOC, despite the absence of necessity of the petitioner for investigation at this stage, renders the restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly when the petitioner has neither evaded the process of law nor shown any inclination to obstruct the investigation. ” 22 32. In Vineet Gupta &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.

, this Court synthesised the entire arc of judicial evolution on the issue of LOC and laid down, the following governing principles: (i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda; (ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood of absconding; (iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office Memorandum dated 22. 02.

2021 is to be narrowly construed and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where the proposed 19 W. P. (C) 3313/2023 decided on 09. 01. 2026. 20 W. P. (C) 15701/2022 decided on 27. 01. 2026. 21 W. P. (C) 12862/2023 decided on 02. 02. 2026. 22 2026:DHC:1616 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 31 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV departure of the subject poses a clear and grave threat to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or economic interests in a national or systemic sense, or the larger public interest; (iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing Director, or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks, would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review.

Thus, as of now, the LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed; (v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to subject the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny, balancing the legitimate interests of the State with the individual's fundamental rights, and to quash such circulars where the restraint imposed is found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in statutory backing, or violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process. Ultimately, the burden lies squarely upon the „originating agencies‟ to justify the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the restraint, failing which such action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically reviewed.

Where it is evident from the record that the subject has cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded the process of law, and where no further interrogation or presence is demonstrably required, the continued operation of an LOC would amount to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty; (vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court is not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a person against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer Singh Salkan, a person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the first instance, required to join the investigation or surrender before the jurisdictional Court, or otherwise satisfy the Court that the LOC is unwarranted. The individual may also approach the authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and seek its withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-application of mind.

An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon an appropriate application. 33. On a conspectus of constitutional provisions, the regulatory framework, and the entire body of judicial opinion surveyed above, this Court distils the following governing legal principles for the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of Look Out Circulars: 34. First,the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 32 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on this right must be founded on law, must follow a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable, and must not violate any other fundamental right.

Executive instructions cannot be a substitute for legislative mandate for the possible restriction of fundamental rights. Second, an LOC is a coercive executive measure of last resort. It is not a routine tool for law enforcement or debt recovery. Recourse to an LOC may be taken only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the IPC or other penal laws, where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing before the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive measures, and there is a real and proximate likelihood of absconding. 35. Third, public sector banks, through their Chairman, Managing Directors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess legal authority to seek the opening of an LOC. Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM (equivalent to Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 OM), which conferred such power upon bank officials, stands quashed by decisions of both this Court and the Bombay High Court. 36.

Fourth, mere inability to repay a debt, without there being a criminal case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. The issuance of an LOC cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan default or credit facility availed for business purposes. Where the person against whom the LOC is opened has not been arrayed as an accused in any offence for misappropriation or siphoning, the LOC cannot be sustained. Fifth, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05.

2026 11:49:35 Page 33 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV the power under Clause 6(L) of the 2021 OM to issue an LOC in cases detrimental to the “economic interests of India” is to be narrowly construed and must be exercised only in rare and compelling circumstances where the proposed departure poses a clear and grave threat to the national or systemic economic interests of India, not in cases of routine commercial default or individual business failure. The quantum of the alleged default and the nature of the loss must be assessed to determine whether it genuinely imperils the national economic interest. 37. Sixth, the authority charged with opening an LOC must apply its mind independently and cannot act as a mere instrument of the originating agency. There must be a speaking order, based on specific and credible inputs, justifying the necessity of the restraint. A mechanical or pro forma compliance with the originating authority‟s request cannot satisfy this requirement.

Seventh, an LOC cannot be issued against a person merely on account of his status as a director, guarantor, shareholder, or family member of a defaulting borrower, in the absence of specific material demonstrating his direct and personal role in the alleged wrongdoing. Guilt is personal and not vicarious in civil or criminal liability. 38. Eighth, the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite. It must be periodically reviewed and must be withdrawn when its purpose has been served. Where the subject has cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded process, and where no further interrogation or presence is required, the continued operation of an LOC amounts to an Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 34 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty.

Ninth, while the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is duty-bound to subject LOCs to strict judicial scrutiny, the Writ Court is not the exclusive forum for challenge. A person against whom an LOC has been issued may, in the first instance, approach the originating authority for withdrawal, or approach the trial Court for its rescission or modification. However, where these remedies are inadequate or ineffectual, the writ jurisdiction is clearly available. Tenth, the burden of justifying the necessity, proportionality, and legality of an LOC lies squarely upon the originating agency. In the absence of such justification, the LOC cannot be sustained. Courts must not accept bald assertions of security concerns or economic interest without requiring the originating agency to place credible material before the Court. C. ANALYSIS I. LOCs ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/BANKS (i) W. P. (C) 7348/2023 39.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashingof the LOC issued against him and permission to travel abroad. It is the case of the petitioner that the sole basis for issuance and continuation of the LOC is his alleged association as a Director and Guarantor of M/s Margdarshak Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (“MFSPL”), which had availed credit facilities from the respondent Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 35 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV Bank. 40. The outstanding loan liability against MFSPL stands at Rs. 218. 67 crores as per the Financial Audit Report dated 21. 09. 2022, and the loan account of MFSPL was subsequently declared as „Fraud‟ by the respondent Bank on 22. 11. 2022. Consequent thereto, the LOC against the petitioner came to be issued by the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Punjab National Bank vide reference dated 10. 03. 2023. 41.

It is pertinent to note that no FIR or Criminal Investigation is pending against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid loan account. The LOC has been issued solely at the instance of the Respondent Bank, without any underlying cognizable offence, and has not been reviewed since the date of its issuance, continuing to subsist mechanically till date. The Respondent Bank has contended that since no collateral security is available in the NPA account of MFSPL, the petitioner remains jointly and severally liable for the outstanding dues as Director and personal guarantor of the Borrower Company. (ii) W. P. (C) 16550/2023 42. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the LOC opened at the instance of Respondent No. 2/Union Bank of India, seeking its quashing on the ground that the same has been issued without any application of mind, thereby infringing the petitioner‟s right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner first came to know of the impugned LOC on 23. 11. 2023, when he was Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 36 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV stopped at the Indira Gandhi International Airport and denied permission to board his flight to Dubai, where he was scheduled to meet his investor. 43. The petitioner is the Promoter and Director of Respondent No. 3, to which Respondent No. 2 and SBI had extended credit facilities in 2011, which were declared NPA on 30. 09. 2016. Despite the petitioner paying Rs. 11 crores and submitting multiple settlement proposals, including a lump sum of Rs. 50 crores during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process („CIRP‟) and Rs. 57. 30 crores during the liquidation proceedings along with an EMD of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,55,90,000/-, none were accepted. The National Company Law Tribunal („NCLT‟) vide order dated 01. 12.

2023 directed the concerned liquidator to convene meetings of the shareholders and creditors in the Scheme of Compromise filed by the petitioner under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. 44. It is pertinent to note that no criminal investigation is pending against the petitioner, and the account has neither been declared as a wilful defaulter nor fraud. No FIR or criminal complaint has been registered at the instance of the Bank. The impugned LOC has been issued solely at the instance of Respondent No. 2, contrary to the Office Memoranda dated 27. 10. 2010 and 05. 12. 2017, without any underlying cognizable offence. (iii) W. P. (C) 7484/2023 45. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 37 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV the LOC issued against him.

At the time of filing of the present petition, the petitioner was given to understand that two LOCs existed against him, one issued at the instance of Respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) and the other at the instance of Respondent No. 3/Indian Bank. The LOC issued at the instance of the CBI has since beenwithdrawn. What survives and is impugned in the present petition is solely the LOC issued at the instance of Respondent No. 3/Indian Bank, which continues to subsist against the petitioner. (iv) W. P. (C) 8252/2024 46. The petitioner is not named as an accused in theFIR filed by CBI. This position has been fairly conceded by Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the CBI, who submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the FIR. While the CBI investigation is ongoing, the petitioner has neither been arrested nor charge-sheeted. What survives and is impugned in this petition is solely the LOC issued at the instance of Respondent No. 3/Punjab National Bank. 47.

Additionally, vide order dated 20. 01. 2025, permission was granted to the petitioner to travel to Canada for the period from 21. 01. 2025 to 07. 03. 2025. The petitioner duly complied with the said order and returned to India within the stipulated period without flouting any condition imposed by this Court, thereby demonstrating her bonafides. (v) W. P. (C)549/2025 48. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 38 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV the LOC issued at the instance of BOB. The petitioner was a Director of Mekaster Engineering Limited and resigned from the Directorship on 22. 02. 2014. The petitioner is also a Guarantor for the loan facility availed by the said company from BOB, which was declared NPA for an outstanding amount of Rs. 11. 23 crores. 49.

Bank of Baroda has already initiated recovery proceedings by way of OA 242/2015 before the DRT, Ahmedabad, and SARFAESI proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner. The impugned LOC appears to have been issued in the year 2022, and the petitioner first came to know of the same on 14. 06. 2022 when he was stopped at the airport. It is pertinent to note that there is no criminal investigation pending against the petitioner, no FIR has been registered, and no aspersion of non-cooperation has been raised against him. The LOC has been issued solely at the instance of the BOB in the absence of any underlying cognizable offence 50. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court vide order dated 22. 01. 2025 had granted permission to the petitioner to travel to the United Kingdom from 23. 01. 2025 to 20. 02. 2025 to attend the graduation ceremony of his son.

The petitioner duly complied with the said order and returned to India within the stipulated period without flouting any condition imposed by this Court, thereby demonstrating his bonafides. (vi) W. P. (C) 1304/2025 51. The present petition relates solely to the LOC issued at the Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 39 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV instance of BOB, opened on 01. 10. 2019. The petitioner was engaged with M/s Kwality Limited, first as a Consultant and thereafter as an Executive Director from 18. 04. 2011 to 28. 05. 2015, and subsequently as a Non-Executive Director from 29. 05. 2015 to 10. 07. 2018. The said company availed certain loan facilities, and upon default, the loan account was declared NPA. 52. An FIR came to be registered by the CBI on 10. 09.

2020, in which the petitioner has been named as an accused, with allegations of diversion of funds, inflation of cash sales, and engagement in circular transactions in her capacity as Director and personal guarantor of the company. An ECIR was also registered by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner is currently out on regular bail. 53. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court has on four occasions permitted the petitioner to travel abroad. The petitioner has on each occasion duly complied with the conditions imposed and returned to India within the stipulated period, thereby demonstrating her bonafides. The details of the travel permissions granted are as under: S. No. Order Destination Purpose Date 1. 30. 02. 2025 Singapore Accompany Daughter for Higher Studies 2. 13. 10. 2025 Singapore Settle in New Accommodation 3. 17. 11. 2025 Bangkok Not Specified 4. 19. 12. 2025 Baku, Attend Birthday of his family fried.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 40 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV Azerbaijan 54. The petitioner has at all times complied with the conditions imposed by this Court and has returned as per the stipulated timelines on each occasion, thereby demonstrating his bonafides and continued respect for the directions of this Court. (vii) W. P. (C) 7503/2024 55. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the LOC issued at the instance of Union Bank of India. The petitioner is a citizen of India and has been a permanent resident of Hong Kong since 1978, where he has incorporated his own company. The said company availed a credit facility from the Hong Kong Branch of Union Bank of India, in respect of which the petitioner was a personal guarantor and had also mortgaged a property situated in Hong Kong. 56.

Due to default in repayment, the Union Bank of India, Hong Kong declared the bank account of the petitioner‟s company as NPA on 30. 09. 2019. The petitioner first came to know of the impugned LOC on 24. 11. 2021, when he was informed by the Immigration Department upon being stopped while travelling back to Hong Kong from India. 57. It is the case of the petitioner that no cause of action for the issuance of the LOC arose within India, and if any cause of action existed, it subsists solely in Hong Kong. It is pertinent to note that no criminal case or investigation is pending against the petitioner in India, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 41 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV and the LOC has been issued solely at the instance of Union Bank of India in the absence of any underlying cognizable offence. (viii) W. P. (C) 4612/2025 58.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the LOC issued at the instance of BOB, which appears to have been opened prior to 2022. 59. The petitioner is a guarantor to the loan facility availed by M/s Mahesh Timber Private Limited from BOB, whose credit facilities were declared NPA in 2016 with outstanding dues exceeding Rs. 50 crores. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is neither a Director nor a shareholder of M/s Mahesh Timber Private Limited, and is not a beneficiary of the loan facility availed by the said company. A recovery application filed at the instance of BOB is also pending adjudication before the DRT, Chandigarh. 60. The CBI has filed a chargesheet in the matter; however, the petitioner has not been named therein. The petitioner is currently on bail in FIR No. 3276/2014. It is further submitted that LOCs were also opened by BOB against the petitioner‟s family members, namely, Smt.

Lakshmi Singhal (Mother), Shri Babu Ram (Father) and Shri Deepak Singhal (Brother). This Court vide judgment dated 08. 08. 2024 in W. P. (C) 15990/2023, 7239/2024 and 7207/2024 set aside those LOCs, and the appeal preferred by BOB against the said judgment has been dismissed vide order dated 18. 12. 2025 in LPA 1070/2024. 61. Mr. Arun Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for BOB, has Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 42 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable before this Court as no part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. It is his case that the loan was availed at Chandigarh, the DRT proceedings are pending at Chandigarh, and the LOC was opened outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and hence the petitioner ought to have approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 62.

He also submits that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in W. P. (C) 19018/2022 and W. P. (C) 12712/2022 has quashed similar LOCs issued at the instance of BOB, and the said orders were stayed by the Supreme Court, pending a final adjudication on the challenge. It is his case that the Court ought not to grant a similar relief. 63. Learned counsel has also relied upon certain Rajya Sabha debates to reflect a considered Government policy on LOCs issued at the instance of banks in matters of large financial defaults, and this Court ought to be guided by the same. 64. It is found appropriate to deal with the specific submissions of Mr Aggarwal, at this stage itself. They are found to be lacking in merit owing to the following reasons: 65.

First, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly that the petition was entertained in 2025, that the petitions filed by the petitioner‟s family members were entertained and decided by this Court, and that pleadings stand completed, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to another High Court at this stage. While on this point alone the present petition ought Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 43 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV to be entertained. It may also be considered that the LOC in the instant case has been opened at the behest of BOB, which is in Delhi, further the Bureau of Immigration, which is the authority that ultimately issues and circulates the LOC, is also in Delhi. Thus, it is not a case where, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 66.

Second, the setting aside of an LOC is a fact-specific exercise and depends upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case. The stay of the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in other matters would not operate as a bar to this Court examining the validity of the impugned LOC on its own merits. It is settled law that a stay of a judgment operates only inter parties and does not have the effect of nullifying the legal principle laid down therein for all purposes. The impugned LOC must therefore stand or fall on its own merits. 67. Third, legislative debates, including those in the Rajya Sabha, are at best a tool of external aid in the interpretation of a statute and cannot substitute a formal executive or legislative order.

Unless there is a formal order or notification issued by the Government, or a statute passed by the legislature, which further has withstood judicial scrutiny, parliamentary debates cannot be used to shield an order, which otherwise deserves to be quashed. (ix) W. P. (C) 4310/2026 AND 5086/2026 68. The present petitions have been moved by the petitioner seeking suspension of the LOC(s) issued against her and permission to travel Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 44 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV abroad. W. P. (C) 4310/2026 arises out of the LOC issued at the instance of Punjab National Bank, whereas W. P. (C) 5086/2026 arises out of the LOC issued at the instance of BOB. Both petitions arise out of the same set of facts pertaining to the alleged association of the petitioner as a Director of Moser Baer India Ltd. (“MBIL”) and Moser Baer Solar Ltd. (“MBSL”). 69.

It is the case of the petitioner that the sole basis for issuance and continuation of the LOC is his alleged association as a Director of MBIL and MBSL, which had availed credit facilities from the Respondent Banks. The allegations pertain to criminal conspiracy, forgery, use of forged documents, and alleged irregularities in the loan accounts of MBIL and MBSL. Consequent thereto, an FIR came to be registered by the CBI, pursuant to which the impugned LOC was issued against the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner was declared a wilful defaulter under the Reserve Bank of India‟s Master Circular. 70. The petitioner was informed of the issuance of the impugned LOC vide an undated letter received on 06. 10. 2020. 71. It is, however, pertinent to note that the declaration of the petitioner as a wilful defaulter qua the account of MBSL by Punjab National Bankhas since been set aside by this Court vide judgment 23 in Nita Puri v.

Punjab National Bank, and the same has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in Punjab 24 National Bank v. Nita Puri, thereby upholding the setting aside of 23 2024:DHC:1646 : W. P. (C) 10568/2023, order dt. 29. 02. 2024. 24 LPA No. 294/2024. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 45 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV the declaration of wilful default against the petitioner. 72. Further, the petitioner stands discharged in both the RC‟s by the Trial Court. The Ld. CJM, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi discharged the petitioner in the MBSL matter vide RC No. 223/2020/A/0002 in the case of CBI vs. M/s Moser Baer Solar Ltd. & Ors. vide order dated 24. 05. 2025. Likewise, the Ld. Special Judge- CBI, (PC Act)-10, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi discharged the petitioner in the MBIL matter vide RC No. RCBD1/2019/0006 in the case of CBI v. M/s Moser Baer India Ltd. &Ors.

vide order dated 17. 01. 2025. 73. While two revision petitions at the instance of the CBI against the said discharge orders are pending before this Court, the CBI has not independently opened any LOC against the petitioner. As of date, no criminal investigation is pending against the petitioner at the instance of any Investigating Agency, and the LOC earlier issued by one such agency stands cancelled by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 4/Central Bank of India that no LOC has been issued at their instance. 74. Since the issuance of the impugned LOC, the petitioner has been allowed to travel abroad on 12 occasions by this Court, by orders passed in W. P. (C) 8608/2020 i. e. , the earlier writ petition filed by 25 him, and has duly returned on each and every occasion, without 25 Which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide the liberty granted by the Court in its order dated 14. 01. 2026 in W. P. (C) 8608/2020.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 46 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV flouting any condition imposed by this Court. The details whereof are as under: S. No. Order Date Destination Purpose 1. 24. 12. 2020 USA Medical Treatment of Husband 2. 22. 07. 2021 USA Medical Treatment of Husband 3. 10. 12. 2021 USA Personal Medical Treatment 4. 01. 06. 2022 USA To meet Grand-Daughter 5. 12. 09. 2022 USA To meet daughter & grand-daughters; medical treatment 6. 28. 03. 2023 USA Not Specified 7. 28. 03. 2023 Interlaken, Vacation with daughter and Switzerland grand-daughters 8. 17. 08. 2023 Not Specified Family get together 9. 15. 03. 2024 Not Specified Family get together 10. 05. 07. 2024 United Kingdom, Vacation with daughter and Germany and grand-daughters Australia 11. 03. 09. 2024 USA To spend time with daughter 12. 03. 09. 2024 USA To spend time with daughter 75.

The petitioner has at all times complied with the conditions imposed by this Court and has returned as per the stipulated timelines on each occasion, thereby demonstrating her bonafides and continued respect for the directions of this Court. (x) W. P. (C) 4066/2026 AND W. P. (C) 5126/2026 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 47 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 76. The facts and situation in the instant case are almost similar to W. P. (C) 3971/2026. The petitioner herein is also a Director of MBIL and MBSL, and the background facts pertaining to the credit facilities, declaration of fraud, CBI proceedings, and discharge orders remain the same as set out hereinabove. 77. The petitioner in W. P. (C) 4066/2026 was informed of the issuance of the impugned LOC vide mail dated 11. 03. 2022 by the Bureau of Immigration.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent/CBI that no LOC has been issued at their instance. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for Punjab National Bank submits that while an LOC was earlier issued at their instance, the same is no longer subsisting as on date. The petitioner confined the present petition solely to the LOC issued at the instance of the Bank. 78. In W. P. (C) 5126/2026, LOC was issued at the instance of the BOB, the remaining facts remain identical to W. P. (C) 4066/2026. 79. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has been granted permission to travel abroad on 9 occasions and has duly returned on each occasion without flouting any condition imposed by this Court, thereby demonstrating his bonafides. The details whereof are as under: S. No. Order Date Destination Purpose 1. 20. 04. 2022 Franc and Iceland Business Meetings 2. 24. 08.

2022 USA and Spain Business Meetings and Meet Daughter Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 48 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 3. 14. 12. 2022 Netherlands and Not Specified &20. 12. 2022 France 4. 05. 04. 2023 USA Business Meetings and Meet Daughter 5. 25. 08. 2023 Spain and Italy Business Meetings 6. 03. 04. 2024 South Korea, Business Meetings Japan and UAE 7. 16. 05. 2024 France, Business Meetings Switzerland and England 8. 29. 10. 2024 Japan, Oman and Business Meetings Thailand 9. 22. 09. 2025 Spain Business Meetings (xi) W. P. (C) 1196/2026 80. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the LOCs issued at the instance of Indian Bank and BOB. The petitioner is the former Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Neosis Industries Limited, which had availed banking facilities from a consortium of lenders led by Punjab National Bank, including Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 81.

The Banks have submitted that the account of the company has been declared fraud and that a huge amount remains to be recovered from the petitioner. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that these aspects, even assuming to be correct, cannot be the sole basis for opening or continuing the LOCs against the petitioner. It is further noted that the Respondent Banks have not placed on record any document to substantiate the declaration of the account as fraud. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 49 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV 82. The petitioner was granted relief by the Ld. Special Judge, PC Act vide order dated 06. 02. 2026 permitting him to travel to Bangkok from 17. 02. 2026 to 28. 02. 2026, and the petitioner duly complied with the said order and returned within the stipulated period, thereby demonstrating his bonafides. 83.

Having set out the facts of each of the aforementioned petitions, this Court finds it apposite to note that all abovementioned petitions, though arising from distinct factual matrices, share a common and identical legal thread: in each case, the Look Out Circular has been issued solely at the instance of a public sector bank, in the absence of any subsisting independent criminal proceeding forming the foundation for such issuance, or in cases where the petitioner is either not named as an accused, has been discharged by the Trial Court, or is merely a guarantor or former director with no direct and personal complicity established in the alleged fraud or misappropriation. It is for this reason that all petitions are being considered and disposed of together, as they raise identical questions of law and call for the application of the same settled legal principles. 84.

The fundamental question before this Court in these petitions resolves itself into a single compound inquiry—whether the concerned LOCs qualify and meet the principles set out by this Court in para. 34- 38 of this judgement, including, inter alia, whether at the time of issuance of the LOC, a live and validly registered cognizable offence under the IPC or any other penal statute, and was the LOC issued by a competent authority acting upon credible, specific, and independently Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:05. 05. 2026 11:49:35 Page 50 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV verified material? Where the LOC is found to fall ill with the principles enunciated above, the LOC must fall, and this Court is constitutionally obligated to quash it. When the facts of each of the aforenoted petitions before this Court are tested against this standard, it is evident that none of them satisfy the requirement of law. 85.

In all cases, the LOCs have been continued mechanically without any periodic review, and several petitioners, particularly those in W. P. (C) 4310/2026, W. P. (C) 5086/2026, W. P. (C) 4066/2026 and W. P. (C) 5126/2026, have travelled abroad on multiple occasions and returned each time without default, demonstrating their bonafides beyond doubt. 86. The LOCs are accordingly quashed and set aside in, su

Source: High Court of Delhi. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.