'Look-Out Circular Not Confidential, Why Can't Accused Be Intimated?': Supreme Court Asks CBI; Calls For Standard Operating Procedure
Debby Jain
22 April 2026 9:05 AM IST
The issue concerns a person's right to movement, J Sandeep Mehta observed.
The Supreme Court on April 21 called on the Central Bureau of Investigation to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure regarding issuance of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs) against accused persons.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the CBI over the stopping of an accused - the petitioner - at the airport, due to an LOC opened against him, despite the jurisdictional Court having granted permission to travel abroad.
From a larger perspective, the bench wondered why the LOC could not be served upon the accused and/or the accused intimated about issuance of such LOC. "LOC is not a confidential document" remarked Justice Nath, noting that as per CBI's own office memorandum, reasons have to be given, and if they are not given, an LOC cannot be acted upon.
Briefly put, the case pertained to one Nimesh Navinchandra Shah, who is being prosecuted both by the CBI and the ED after the account of a company he joined was declared a Non Performing Asset. He has obtained bail in the CBI case, but two LOCs have been opened against him - one, by the CBI, and another, by a Bank.
While the LOC issued against the petitioner's wife has been quashed, the one issued against him by the Bank is pending challenge before the High Court. The CBI LOC against the petitioner was challenged before the High Court as well, but his plea was rejected. As such, he approached the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, for the petitioner, pointed out that the CBI chargesheet was filed without arrest and the PMLA investigation also concluded without the petitioner getting arrested. Initially, when he applied to the jurisdictional court for permission to travel abroad (in terms of his bail conditions), the same was granted.
However, when he went to the airport, he was stopped from travelling, in view of the LOC opened by the CBI. Later, he had to again travel abroad for a wedding. As such, he approached the High Court for quashing of the LOC, but the petition was dismissed.
When Justice Nath enquired if the petitioner had since received a copy of the LOC, Aggarwal replied in the negative. The counsel emphasized that as a matter of practice, LOCs are not supplied to accused and/or intimated about. "Neither there is any pre-decisional hearing, nor any intimation, nor any post-decisional hearing...one can only find out at airport immigration...It's an administrative action, no statute behind it, department takes a view it is confidential...Everybody else is involved in this except the person on whom the civil consequences would fall", he said.
Hearing the submissions, Justice Mehta questioned ASG DP Singh (for CBI), "Once Court grants permission to travel abroad, how does your LOC survive?"
Justice Nath, on the other hand, questioned why the petitioner could not be asked to deposit his passport instead. "Why can't you ask trial court to ask him to deposit the passport? As and when he is required to travel, passport can be released to him and permission will be granted."
In response, Singh said, "Not an issue, but there are judgments now which say passport cannot be impounded". "That can be a bail condition" retorted Justice Mehta.
Ultimately, Singh conceded that in the present case, if the petitioner surrenders his passport, there can be a condition and the issue can be taken care of. On a specific Court query, he also informed that LOCs are issued by CBI under an office memorandum.
From a larger perspective, the bench emphasized that some procedure is required. "A man travelling with his family...not knowing anything...and he is stopped at the airport saying you can't go", Justice Mehta remarked.
The judge noted that in the present case, there was also an additional factor of the petitioner having Court permission. "Inspite thereof, on reaching airport, he is told no LOC from such and such agency!", he said.
Justice Mehta further noted that the CBI did not seek the petitioner's arrest. "You don't arrest him before filing chargesheet. Why is he supposed to go to the Court? You don't even have the courtesy to even inform by a message that there's an LOC...What is there to shy? He learns on getting at the airport, he loses the ticket money...suppose he is travelling business class to US...he will lose 10-15 lakhs...why should that happen?"
The judge also observed that the issue concerns a person's right to free movement, "It deals with the right to movement. If a clerical level officer in your agency issues LOC...".
When Singh interjected saying that LOC is not issued like that, the judge cut him short, remarking that it seemed to be so, as there was complete non-application of mind in the present case. Justice Mehta categorically told the ASG to come back with an SOP or else the Court will provide one.
"All conditions contemplated can be taken care of by a properly systematically designed SOP. You can take care of all kinds of situations which may arise", J Mehta said.
The matter was adjourned giving time to the CBI to place the LOC on record.
Case Title: NIMESH NAVINCHANDRA SHAH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 3288/2026