Court Rules LOC Issued Merely on Apprehension Without Evidence of Evasion is Unsustainable; Directs Conditions for Travel and Investigation Cooperation
In a significant judgment delivered on September 25, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Mr. Aditya Kaushik, a British citizen and resident, involved in a property dispute case registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan. The Court held that the issuance of the LOC was premature and unsustainable as it was based solely on apprehension rather than on any concrete evidence of evasion or non-compliance by the petitioner.
The case originated from two cross FIRs registered in 2025. FIR No. 77 alleged forgery and impersonation in a document related to an application submitted to the District Tourism Development Officer. FIR No. 79, filed by the director of a hospitality company, accused Mr. Kaushik of cheating in relation to an agreement to sell adjoining land to a resort property. The dispute essentially revolved around the sale and purchase of property, which the Court observed was primarily a civil matter given a criminal hue by the parties.
The investigating authorities had issued the LOC on July 18, 2025, to prevent Mr. Kaushik from leaving India during the investigation, citing his status as a British citizen and concerns about his availability. However, the Court pointed out that there was no evidence that Mr. Kaushik had ever evaded arrest, disobeyed coercive processes like non-bailable warrants, or failed to appear in court, as mandated under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) guidelines issued on February 22, 2021.
The Court referred to the MHA guidelines and relevant case law, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in Summer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director, which clarified that LOCs are meant for cases where the accused deliberately evades arrest or trial and there is a likelihood of absconding. The Court found none of these conditions met in the present matter.
While quashing the LOC, the Court imposed conditions to ensure Mr. Kaushik's cooperation with the ongoing investigation and trial. These include furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs, providing two local sureties of Rs. 2 lakhs each, submitting an undertaking not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, joining the investigation and court proceedings as required, and providing contact details abroad. Upon compliance, he is permitted to travel abroad.
The Court emphasized that the issuance of LOC should not be a coercive tool based merely on speculative apprehension but must be backed by substantive grounds as prescribed by law. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards must be respected to protect individual liberty, especially in cases involving foreign nationals and cross-border matters.
Bottom Line:
Look Out Circular cannot be issued merely on apprehension that accused may leave country, unless conditions in MHA guidelines are satisfied, such as deliberate evasion of arrest or non-appearance despite coercive process. In property dispute given criminal colour, LOC against British resident was quashed, subject to conditions securing his participation in investigation and trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 420 IPC, Section 318(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 (Guidelines on Look Out Circular)
Aditya Kaushik v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995661
