Madras High Court: In a writ petition directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) to withdraw the Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) issued to the Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, against the petitioner in connection with a case pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Single Judge Bench of D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. observed that a foreign national cannot be compelled to remain in India indefinitely in connection with a criminal case, particularly when he has not even been named as an accused. Accordingly, the Court directed the investigating agencies to complete the probe against the petitioner, a citizen of Seychelles, within one year. It further ordered that, if no case is established against him upon conclusion of the investigation, the Lookout Circular issued against him shall be revoked.
Background
The petitioner was one of the directors of Broadcourt Investments Limited, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, alongside another individual during the relevant period. Axcel Sunshine Limited borrowed over Rs. 500 crores, which was allegedly siphoned off partly to Broadcourt Investments Limited. An investigation was conducted, culminating in a final report. Upon the petitioner’s return to India, a Lookout Circular was issued against him, despite him not being named as an accused. The petitioner had cooperated fully, appeared for inquiry, and complied with court orders on multiple occasions allowing him to travel abroad temporarily, yet the Lookout Circular remained in effect, restricting his travel rights.
The petitioner claimed this prolonged restriction violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the respondents argued that due to the serious and complex nature of the case involving multiple accused and substantial financial loss, the investigation remained ongoing, justifying the continued issuance of the Lookout Circular to prevent the petitioner’s potential flight risk. The authorities responsible for implementing the circular maintained that their role was limited to enforcement and monitoring, not deciding on its withdrawal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the general principle that a Lookout Circular need not continue once an individual is cooperating with the investigation and attending court proceedings could not be applied directly in this case due to specific distinguishing factors. Firstly, the petitioner is a citizen of Seychelles, a country with which India does not have an extradition treaty. Secondly, the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents recorded a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner posed a flight risk if allowed to travel abroad unconditionally. Thirdly, the ongoing investigation related to a serious financial offense involving hundreds of crores of rupees, with potential ramifications for the integrity of the national banking system.
Hence, the Court held that the CBI was right in continuing the Lookout Circular against the petitioner.
The Court further noted that, while the seriousness of the case and the complexity of the investigation justified its continuation thus far, the time lag involved could not be ignored. It held that an investigation cannot remain pending indefinitely and must be concluded within a reasonable period, as an unduly prolonged inquiry would infringe upon the petitioner’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the explanation provided by the CBI, that the investigation into a prior loan transaction involving one company had led to further inquiries involving multiple accused persons, the Court found the continuation of the investigation up to the present stage to be justified.
The Court held that the petitioner, being a foreign national and not yet named as an accused in the criminal case, could not be compelled to remain in India indefinitely. It observed that appropriate legal procedures would apply once the petitioner is formally arrayed as an accused.
Emphasising that the investigation must be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, the Court directed that the ongoing investigation be completed within one year from the date of the order. It stated that if, upon completion of the investigation, no case is made out against the petitioner, CBI shall revoke the Lookout Circular. However, if an offence is established and the petitioner is added as an accused, he would be required to face trial, in which case the continuation of the Lookout Circular would be justified. The Court further clarified that if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated one-year period, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court once again seeking quashing of the Lookout Circular. It underscored the responsibility of the authorities to prioritise and expedite the investigation, noting that the matter had already been pending for a considerable duration.
In the meantime, the petitioner had submitted that his family resided in Malaysia and that he needed to attend his brother’s wedding, scheduled for 27-06-2025.
Considering the fact that the petitioner had previously been permitted to travel to Malaysia on three separate occasions under specific conditions, and had duly returned each time, the Court found it reasonable to allow similar permission on this occasion as well. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to travel to Malaysia on 17-06-2025 or any time thereafter, with a direction to return to India by 10-07-2025. However, the Court made it clear that this permission would be subject to the following conditions:
-
The petitioner was required to provide a fresh travel itinerary to both the Trial Court and the CBI
-
He was granted leave to travel strictly according to the schedule submitted in compliance with condition (a);
-
During his stay, the petitioner was to reside only at the address specified in his undertaking affidavit, and was directed not to change his residence without prior notice to the CBI
-
He was prohibited from leaving Malaysia during the permitted period of stay.
-
Upon arrival in Malaysia, the petitioner was to surrender his passport to the Indian High Commission and collect it only prior to his return to India as per the approved travel schedule.
-
An acknowledgment of the passport surrender was to be communicated to the CBI without delay.
-
The petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 10 lakhs and produce two sureties for Rs. 10 lakhs each before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai—one of whom must be a relative. Both sureties were to file affidavits undertaking that the petitioner would return to India on or before the scheduled date.
-
One of the sureties—either a relative or a business associate—was required to possess a valid Indian passport and to have travelled abroad at least a couple of times. Since the petitioner’s relatives were also expected to travel for the wedding, the designated surety was required to deposit a copy of their passport with the CBI; and
-
The Lookout Circular issued by the CBI against the petitioner was to be suspended for the duration of his travel to Malaysia, in accordance with this order.
[Karthik Parthiban v. Superintendent of Police, W.P.No.13960 of 2025, decided on 04-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar
For Respondents: Mr.K.Srinivasan Senior Counsel for CBI cases , Mr.C.V.Shyam Sunder Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
