Right To Travel Abroad | Mere Pendency Of FIR Or Investigation Can't Justify Prolonged Operation Of LOC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged operation of a look out circular against an accused.

While quashing an LOC issued against a woman accused in a Rs. 22.5 crore real estate investment dispute, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that mere pendency of investigation cannot justify prolonged curtailment of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court allowed the petition filed by one Maria Ramesh, challenging the LOC issued in connection with an FIR registered against her in 2020 by the Economic Offences Wing under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The woman was granted anticipatory bail in August 2022 by the trial court which recorded that no illegality or siphoning of funds was apparent and that the project was substantially complete to the extent of 50–70%. The Investigating Officer had also stated that no illegal fund transfer had been detected.

In her plea seeking quashing of LOC, Ramesh contended that she had cooperated with the investigation and had not been called for investigation for over three years.

She said that no chargesheet was filed against her and that she became aware of the LOC only when she was prevented from travelling abroad, including to Australia in connection with her granddaughter's medical condition. Despite requests, she was not furnished with the grounds for issuance of the LOC.

Granting her relief, the Court noted that Ramesh was not arrested in connection with the FIR, was granted anticipatory bail which continues to operate till date, has remained diligent and available to the investigating agency and has joined the investigation as and when required.

It also noted further that although the investigation qua her was stated to be ongoing, no allegation was made by the investigating agency of non- cooperation, evasion of summons, or interference with the investigation.

Further, the Court said that the woman had earlier travelled abroad with court permission and returned within time and that no fresh or contemporaneous material was placed on record to justify continuation of the LOC.

“In these circumstances, the continued operation of the LOC operates as a restraint on the petitioner's personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The absence of any supervening circumstance warranting restraint on the petitioner's right to travel for the purposes of investigation renders the continuation of the LOC unnecessary,” the Court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur Khandelwal, Mr. Chirag Sharma, Mr. Subhoday Banerjee, Mr. Nikhil Saurabh, Ms. Kajal Andhiwal and Ms. Shreya Sahni, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Sunandha Shukla, SPC for UOI, Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC with Ms. Shruti Goel, Advocate

Title: MARIA RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 188

Click here to read order