MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

US formed NRI father Look Out Circular (LOC) quashed

Madhya Pradesh High court

W.P. No. 11468/2016

SUMIT KUMAR
VS.
STATE OF M.P. OTHERS

15.11.2016

Shri Anil Khare, schooled comparison warn with Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra, schooled warn for a petitioner.

Shri B.D. Singh, schooled Government Advocate for a respondents/State.

The postulant has filed a benefaction petition praying for quashment of Look Out Circular (LOC) antiquated 10.03.2016 upheld by a respondents opposite a petitioner.

The postulant has entered into a matrimony with one Jaya Sharma on 05.07.2013 as per rituals of Arya Samaj. Thereafter, a matrimony was took place as per Hindu Rituals on 08.03.2014. The complainant i.e. mother of a postulant has went with him during America. She, thereafter, done a censure that a postulant and his relatives are badgering her with courtesy to dowry and serve used to physically attack her. On a basement of these allegations she had lodged an FIR on 08.08.2015. The postulant lives in USA given 2007 and is operative there given then. As shortly as, a postulant got a believe about a registration of FIR. He himself reached out to a Indian Embassy located in Washington DC and explained a whole conditions to a top officers in a Indian Embassy. The Indian Embassy, thereafter, upheld all a information in a form of created ask to a DGP Office Bhopal around Ministry of External Affairs. The family members of a postulant also submitted their created statements to a Policy Authorities. As a FIR was lodged opposite a petitioner, a petitioner, therefore, filed an focus for anticipatory bail underneath Section 438 of a Cr.P.C before this Hon’ble Court, that was purebred as M.Cr.C. No. 5117/2016. This Court vide sequence antiquated 28.04.2016 has postulated a anticipatory bail to a applicant, theme to certain conditions. During a pendency of this box for extend of anticipatory bail to a postulant a Police Authorities filed a charge-sheet opposite a petitioner’s relatives as good as a postulant underneath Section 299 of a Cr.P.C. While seeking accede to record a charge-sheet, a City Superintendent of Police vide a minute antiquated 28.03.2016, created to respondent No. 2 saying for distribution of Look Out Circular (LOC) opposite a petitioner. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was handed over to a petitioner’s family during a time of filing of a same. When a hermit of a postulant came to know that a LOC has been expelled opposite a petitioner. The petitioner’s brother, therefore, wrote to respondent No. 2 and also respondent No. 3 intimating a extend of anticipatory bail to a petitioner. It has been serve settled that a postulant is peaceful to seem before a hearing Court and so requested a respondent No. 2 to cancel a Look Out Circular non-stop opposite a petitioner. It has serve been settled that from a minute antiquated 28.03.2016, it is transparent that a LOC is expelled usually on a belligerent that a postulant is not appearing before a Court, however, it would be applicable to discuss herein that given a petitioner’s focus for anticipatory bail was pending, he did not seem before a authorities, but, duly cooperated by emails. It has serve been settled that a reason for distribution of LOC has now turn non existence as a postulant after extend of anticipatory bail wants to come to India to duly seem before a hearing Court. The postulant has settled that a LOC has been expelled arbitrarily but any pardonable reasons as a postulant was duly auxiliary with a review and always wanted to seem before a authorities theme to preference in his anticipatory bail application. Thus, opposite a pronounced movement of a respondents, a postulant has filed a benefaction command petition.

READ  Divorce : Demanding separate house without cause amounts to cruelty

The respondents have filed their respond and submits that as a postulant was not appearing before a authorities and, therefore, a LOC was expelled opposite a postulant and a record of distribution of LOC were instituted before extend of anticipatory bail by this Court. However, in perspective of a fact of extend of anticipatory bail to a petitioner, a respondents have submitted that a postulant shall be expelled on bail immediately on his detain as per a charge of this Hon’ble Court in anticipatory bail order. It has serve been settled that on before sign of date and place during that postulant Sumit Kumar would come to India from USA, a responding respondents/police shall make all arrangements to safeguard that he is not arrested and is given a reasonable time to perform a conditions for extend of bail as per a sequence upheld by this Court i.e. Annexure P/4.

Learned comparison warn appearing on interest of a postulant submits that a solitary intent of distribution of LOC is to make a participation of a chairman who is not appearing before a Court in annoy of distribution of non bailable warrant. He submits that in a benefaction case, a postulant is always prepared to seem before a hearing Court. He serve submits that as now a anticipatory bail has been postulated by this Court and, therefore, a LOC be quashed. He serve submits that a postulant wants to seem before a hearing Court, however, due to distribution of LOC, a impulse a postulant would land in India, a immigration dialect would dealt him and palm over him to a Police Authorities of a pronounced office who make keep him in control compartment an Officer of Bhopal Police does not strech to detain him. He serve submits that a pronounced practice would amounts to curtailing a personal autocracy of a postulant irrespective of a fact that he has been postulated anticipatory bail. He serve submits that a postulant did not seem before a authorities, as his focus for anticipatory bail was tentative before this Court. He serve submits that a LOC is to be expelled usually in a box where a chairman after distribution of a non bailable aver did not seem before a authorities. However, in a benefaction case, a LOC was expelled on 10.03.2016 and non bailable aver is expelled opposite a postulant on 25.04.2016. Thus, a LOC is expelled before to distribution of non bailable warrant. He serve relied on a settlement upheld by a Madras High Court in a box of Arockia Jeyabalan Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Mount Road, Chennai Others, 2014-4-L.W. 841. In such circumstances, a schooled comparison warn submits that a LOC be quashed.

READ  DRT has jurisdiction under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay if application filed with Securitization Application

On a other hand, schooled warn appearing for a respondents supports a distribution of a LOC. He submits that a questioning group is really within a office to emanate a Look Out Circular in cases where a indicted was deliberately escaped detain or not appearing in a hearing Court notwithstanding non-bailable warrant. The round expelled by a Central Government, it provides that a ask for distribution of LOC is to be done by a questioning officer to a efficient management of a Central Government and a chairman opposite whom a LOC is expelled contingency join review by appearing before a IO or should obey before a Court endangered or should confident a Court that LOC was poorly expelled opposite him and if a IO confident that a LOC has been poorly expelled he might cold it. He serve argues that now as a anticipatory bail has been postulated to a postulant then, a Police Authorities shall make all arrangements to safeguard that he is not arrested and he will be given a reasonable time to perform a conditions for extend of bail. we have listened schooled warn for a parties and perused a record.

The postulant had married to one Jaya Sharma in a year 2013 and FIR was lodged by Jaya Sharma i.e. complainant for offences punishable underneath Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of a Indian Penal Code and also Section 3/4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act on 08.08.2015 to a Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal. As shortly as, a postulant got a information about a registration of FIR opposite him. As he is staying during USA, he went to a Indian Embassy and explaining them about a all incident. The Petitioner duly followed with all Police Officers around email, thereby, saying that a petitioner’s transparent goal to concur with a investigation. As a FIR was purebred opposite a petitioner, a petitioner, therefore, filed an focus underneath Section 438 of a Cr.P.C for extend of anticipatory bail. This Court vide sequence antiquated 28.04.2016 has authorised a focus submitted by a postulant and extend a anticipatory bail to a petitioner. In a meant time, a respondents have expelled a Look Out Circular opposite a postulant and, therefore, he is not means to come behind to India to perform a conditions of a bail order, as a impulse he would land in India, a immigration authorities during a Airport would detain him in terms of a Look Out Circular non-stop opposite a him. The intent of Look Out Circular is to safeguard that a chairman is accessible for inquire or hearing or enquiry. However, in a benefaction case, as a postulant has already been expelled on anticipatory bail and, therefore, there is no reason to keep a LOC tentative opposite a petitioner.

READ  Same Lawyer can represent against clients 2nd Divorce

It has been settled by schooled comparison warn that a postulant is prepared to seem before a hearing Court and concur with a review and, therefore, there is no reason to keep a LOC tentative opposite a petitioner. The Madras High Court in a box of Arockia Jeyabalan (supra) in divide 12 has hold as under:-“The intent of a Look Out Circular is to safeguard that a chairman is accessible for inquire or hearing or enquiry. Now that a Court has expelled him on bail theme to certain conditions as good as sureties, a confinement that a postulant might not make himself accessible and fair to law, has gone.”

The Madras High Court in a pronounced box has hold that a intent of a LOC is to safeguard that a chairman is accessible for inquire or hearing or enquiry and now as a Court has expelled him on bail on certain conditions as good as sureties, a confinement that a postulant might not make himself accessible and fair to law, has gone. In a benefaction case, also as a postulant was already expelled on bail by a Court, a confinement that a postulant might not make himself accessible and fair to law, has gone. Thus, in perspective of a aforesaid, a petition filed by a postulant is allowed. The Look Out Circular antiquated 10.03.2016 expelled opposite a postulant is hereby quashed.

(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar)

Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Rape accused acquitted in light of failure to conduct DNA test that could be a clinching evidence to prove the case
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation