Continuation Of LOC Despite Stay Of Proceedings Curtails Right To Livelihood Of Accused Working Abroad: Karnataka High Court

The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the police or the investigation agency, as the case may be, cannot keep the issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) or the recall of Look Out Circular (LOC) in a limbo once the proceedings are stayed.

“…where criminal proceedings are stayed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it has been consistently held that the very substratum for issuance or continuation of a Look Out Circular ceases to exist. Once the proceedings are stayed, it necessarily implies that the petitioner is not required to participate either in investigation or trial during the subsistence of the stay order”, the court observed.

Once the proceedings are stayed, there arises no necessity of securing the physical presence of the accused for investigation, the court noted in the order, drawing from previous judgments of the co-ordinate benches of the High Court.

The petitioner-accused, a resident of Udupi, was charged with offences punishable under Sections 448 (Trespass), 392 (Robbery) r/w Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. The High Court stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner by exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C

According to the petitioner, he is currently employed in Saudi Arabia. When he approached the Karkala Police Station to secure an NOC or the recall of the LOC on Crime No 117/2019 before his foreign travel, his application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the High Court

The court underscored that the Station House officer erred in refusing the NOC or not recalling the LOC, which put a dent in the petitioner's avenue for earning a livelihood.

“…the petitioner's right to livelihood, particularly when he is employed abroad, is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Any administrative action that curtails such right, in the absence of a subsisting legal necessity, would be violative of constitutional guarantees. When the proceedings themselves are stayed, the insistence on continuation of LOC would result in unjustified interference with the petitioner's right to carry on his profession”, the court concluded while allowing the writ petition.

Accordingly, the court directed the SHO, Karkala PS and Superintendent of Police, Udupi, to recall and keep in abeyance the LOC previously issued.

“…The Station House Officer, being an instrumentality of the State, is bound to give full effect to the judicial order[stay order] passed by this Court and cannot act in derogation thereof. The continuation of the LOC, despite a subsisting stay order, would amount to nullifying the effect of the judicial order and cannot be countenanced”, the court added.

The court also instructed the Chief Immigration Officer, Mangalore Airport, not to enforce the LOC against the petitioner. Additionally, the court clarified that the police should communicate the recall of the LOC against the petitioner to the immigration authorities soon after due verification of his travel details.

Adv. Imtiaz B appeared for the petitioner. Adv. Shanthi Bhushan H., ASG a/w Adv. Samini Ganesh M appeared as the Central Government Counsels for the Union and the Immigration Authority. AGA Vikas Rojipura represented the state police.

Case Title: Mohammed Ashiq v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6111 of 2026 

Click Here To Read/ Download Order