Mere Pendency Of PMLA Investigation Can't Indefinitely Restrict Right To Travel: Delhi High Court Quashes LOCs

The Delhi High Court has quashed Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against two men in connection with an ongoing money laundering investigation, holding that an LOC is a coercive measure and cannot be resorted to routinely merely because an investigation is pending.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the issuance and continued operation of an LOC must be justified by circumstances warranting restraint on the right to travel.

The Court noted that there was no material to show that the petitioners had evaded the investigation, failed to comply with summons or directions or attempted to abscond.

“An LOC is a coercive measure and cannot be resorted to as a matter of routine merely because an investigation is pending,” the Court observed.

“The Court is conscious that the investigation under the PMLA is stated to be continuing and that the role of the petitioners is yet to be conclusively determined. However, the mere fact that an investigation remains pending cannot, in itself, furnish an enduring basis for restricting the petitioner's right to travel, particularly where the petitioner has consistently appeared before the investigating agency,” it added.

The Court was dealing with petitions filed by Deep Kumar Rastogi and Gagan Deep Rastogi, challenging the LOCs issued against them at the instance of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

The PMLA investigation had remained pending for almost six years. The petitioners had initially appeared before the ED in 2020, had their statements recorded and furnished the documents and information sought by the agency. No further communication was addressed to them for almost six years.

Fresh summons were issued to them in December 2025, pursuant to which both petitioners appeared and again cooperated with the investigation. Thereafter, no further summons, notice or request for documents, information or clarification was issued to them.

Justice Mahajan noted that one of the petitioners, an Indian resident aged about 77 years, had travelled abroad several times during the pendency of the investigation and returned to India. He was also seeking to travel to Singapore for medical consultation and evaluation in connection with liver cancer.

The other petitioner, the Court noted, ordinarily resided in Singapore and had travelled between Singapore and India on several occasions during the pendency of the investigation. The Court noted that he had repeatedly remained available in India whenever required by the investigating agency or the Special Court.

“There is no material placed before this Court to show that his travel resulted in his evading the investigation or obstructing the proceedings in any manner,” the Court said.

It also noted that the trial court had not imposed any impediment on the petitioners' foreign travel and thus, it held that they could not be said to be flight risks.

“….the continued operation of the LOCs against the petitioners is unwarranted. The LOCs, therefore, cannot be permitted to operate indefinitely in the absence of circumstances which justify such coercive restraint,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the LOCs issued against the petitioners. However, considering that the PMLA investigation was still pending, the Court imposed conditions on their travel.