The High Court · 2025

SRI K.PRATIK REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT APPEAL No.552 OF 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Mrs lustice Surepalli Nanda) Heard Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri K.Prateek Reddy, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the appellant on record and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2, The present Writ Aopeal has been oreferred aqainst the order, dated 01.O5.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 and the same is extracted hereunder:- "Learned Government Pleader for Home takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and submits that there are about 10 cases registered against the petitioner and thus, seeks time to file counter in the matter. List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2025." PE RUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION:- 3. The case of the appellant in brief is that on 18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl Ashburn, Virginia, USA, a speciat function for book launch is scheduled on the occasion of 15th Death Anniversary of appellants, father one late Sri Kontham Bakka Reddy and therefore, it is !rr,*, \ 2 necessary for the appellant to trave! and stay in the United States of America between 09.05.2025 to 11.O5.2O25 for the said purpose, but however, though the appellant sought an interim direction in W.P.No.13822 ot 2O25 directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the appellant by suspending the Lookout circular/lookout notice, if any, issued against the appellant/petitioner to visit USA for a period of two (02) months, no interim order was granted in favour of the appellant since this Court vide its order, dated O1.O5.2O25 based on the representation of the learned Government pleader that '10' registered against cases are appellantT'petitioner and duly considering the request of the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents for grant of time for filing counter affidavit directed the matter to be listed after summer vacation for the purpose of filing counter affidavit in the matter and aggrieved by the same, the appellant was constrained to file the present Writ Appeal. 3

4. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant however disputes the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents that appellant was involved in ten (1O) criminal cases referring to the statement and the averments at page No.6 of the affidavit filed by the appellant/petitioner in support of the present Writ Appeal and contends that out of'10'cases referred to at page No.6 of the tabular statement, it is only in respect of cases at serial No.1 & 1O that the appellant is arrayed as an accused and in the rest of the other cases No.2 to 9, the appellant is not arrayed as an accused and therefore, the appellant is entitled to travel abroad. 5, Learned senior desionat ed counsel aooearino on behalf of the aDDellant mainlv outs-fort h the followinq submissions:- i) In view of the order of this Court, dated 01.O5.2O25 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025, the appellant is not in a position to attend the book launch function of appellant's late father on 18.O5.2O25 at Donnington pt I 4 Ashburn, Virginia, USA and therefore, serious injustice is caused to the appellant. ii) The present writ appeal is maintainable as per the judgment ,of the Futl Bench of the Madhya pradesh High Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in AIR ZOOT Mp 276 and in particular placed reliance on the observations at para Nos.27 & 31 of the said judgment in support of appellant's case. iii) The present Writ Appeal is maintainable as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and power Limited and Another reported in 2O23 1 SCC 634, dated L4.O3.2O22I and in particular placed reliance on the observations made at para No.19 of the said judgment. iv) The impugned order in the present Writ Appeal, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.p.No.!3822 of 2O25 had trappings of finality in as much as the said orders adversely affected appellant's valuable right to life and personal liberty. v) The appellant is entitled for the relief as sought for by the appellant in the present appeal and the appellant should be permitted to travel abroad to attend the book / ) launch function of the appellant's late father, failing which the very purpose of filing W.p.No.13B22 ot 2O25 and the present Writ Appeal No.5S2 of 2025 would be eventuatty defeated. vi) Placing reliance on the order of this Court, dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P. 9O12 of 2O23, and in particular para No.12, it is contended that sub- para "L" of the circular, dated 22.O2.2O21 has no application to the present case even according to the respondents herein, therefore, the respondents cannot restrict appellant's/petitioner's right to travet abroad. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the lea rned desi rl nafad rarr nsel at'tflaarirtat on beh tf .rf fha I aooellant / petitioner conte ds that the o ent Writ Ann e h <faha all waA ra edf r 6 n nment Pl for Hom ents m uts-f h followinq submiss ions:- i) The present Wrat Appeal is not maantainable and placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated O3.O3.2O25 passed in W.A.No.244 ot 2(J25 and in particular para No.4 for twin reasons, \ I I 6 firstly the present Writ Appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order, secondly, the Writ Court dealt with the criminal matter , since the subject issue pertains to a lookout circular which is a criminal matter and therefore, the Writ Appeal is not maintainable. ii) The appellant should not be permitted to travet abroad and the appellant is not entiHed for any relief at this stage and W.P.No.t3822 of 2025 filed by the appellant/petitioner has to be adjudicated finally. Ba sed on the o resa id sub issions, the ea rn ed Gover ment Pleader for Home aooearino on b half of the respondents contends that the Dresent Writ ADDeal needs to br: dismissed. CONLC SI0N:- 7. The ADex Court in iudoment Dorted in 2 O 3 (1s) SCC oaqe 5;7O in Su it Mehta v St te of NCT of elhi at a 13 observ "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." I ^,*flE 7

8. The Apex Court way back in L967, an Judgment reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836, in ..Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant passport Offacer held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 2L of the Constitution of India and that no person can be deprived of his right to trave! except according to the procedure established by law.

9. The Apex Court in *MENAKA GANDHM. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR t97g SC Sgt, and in *SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNIoN oF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS" reported in 2O19 (2) SCC Ontine SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of a persona! liberty.

10. In the ca of E.V.Perumal Sam Reddv v State, reported in 2(,13 SCC online Mad 4092, it is observed as under: "9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. It is the fundamental right of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One,s such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. In the celebrated case in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon'bte Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of persons to go ,\ I I I 8 abroad. The phrase no one shall be deorived of his IILfe and libertv" exceot orocedure established bv law emploved in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental riqht and human riqht. MENAKA GANDHI (supra) ushered a nGw era in the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of ,Due process of Law,. 10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are antisocial elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arise to apprehend persons, who have ability to fly, and flee away from the country. So, L.O.C. orders are issued. It is an harmonius way out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the societ.y/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.

11. Ug_:uAoment of tne Uaan Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of M.p. and slhere para Nos.2,7 & 31 are extracted hereunder:- particular

27. In the case of W.A. No. 69/2007 Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria v. State of M.p. and Ors., the Division Bench had taken note of the decision rendered in the lal Khim (su p ra ), and exor ssed case of hah Ba the oDrnron that the refusa I of the interim order had ca u sed HOUS in i u stice to the a Della nts and hence, the ao eal was maintain ble. 31. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons we proceed to record our conclusions in seriatim: (a) fhe decision rendered in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain (s;upra), does not lay down the law correcfly and is hereby overru led. J* 9 (b) Any decision treading on the same path has to be deemed to have been overruled. (c) The decisions rendered in Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria (supra) and Tejpal Singh (supra), enunciate the law correctly. (d) fhe proviso to Section 2(1) of 'Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench. (e) An appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (f) rhe guidelines g iven in the cases of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), Central Mine Planninq and Dqstq n Institute Ltd. (su pra ), Deora (supra), Liverpool & London S.P. & i. Association Ltd. (supra), Subal Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peop les' Coooerative Bank Ltd. (supra) are to be kept in view while deciding the maintainability of an a ppea l. (g) It should be borne in mind that instances given in the aforesaid decisions are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature, because various kind s/ca teg ories of orders may be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (h) The Facts in each case, the nature and the character of the order are to be scrutinised to appreciate the trappings of the same. L2. Thejudoment ofthe Apex Court in Shvam Sel and Power Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634, dated 14.O3.2O22 and in oarticular oara No.19 is extracted hereunder:-

19. It has been held in Shah Babulal Khimji that most of the interlocutory orders whlch contain the quality of I I I t0 e rt h f h ( )to( finality are clearly specified in clauses ) orQrdcr xLUI_BUe_!_epg and woutd be 'judgments' within the mea ning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. Ho wever, there may be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC but which also DOSSeSs the characteristics tra o rrinqs of f ina litv nasmuc as su ch orders mav an important aspect of the trlal in an ancillary decide ding. It has further been held that however, procee h an order to be a 'judgment,, an adverse efFect for suc on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. Various illustrations of interlocutory orders have been given by this Court in para (120), which could be held to be appeatable. This Court held that though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other, they cannot be treated as a 'judgment' unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. This Court has expressed in p.ara (722) that though it had, by way of sample, laid down various illustrative examples of an order which may amount to a judgment, it would not be possible to give such an exhaustive list as may cover all possible areas. This Court in the facts of the said case, held that an order of the Sinqle Judqe refu srnq ADD intment of a r rver and qrant of an ad- interim iniun 10n was ndoubted v a 'iudo ment' within the meaninq of Letters Patent, both beca use Order XLIII Rule 1CP C apoliesto interrral aooeal s in the iqh Court and that such an order even on meri conta ins the oual tv of fina I itv and ould therefore be a 'iudo ent' ithin the meanino of CIause 15 of the Patent,

13. Takinq into consider ation th observ ations of the Aoex Court in the iudo ments ( referred to and extr cted a ve )re Do rte tn i) 2013 vol15 SCC page 570 I I I I ii) 2019 vol2 SCConline SC 2O48 iii) ArR 1967 SC 1836 iv) Para No.19 of the judgment reported in 2023 (1) SCC 634 and v) para No.27 of the Full Bench of the judgment of the Madhyapradesh High Court, dated 2L.O3.2Ot7 in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others Vs. State of M.P.and Others, and vi) 2O13 SCConline Madras 4092, this Court opines that the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Wrat Appeal. L4. This Court opines that the judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents has no application to the facts of the present case since it pertains to a quash petition and the present subject issue is not a criminal matter and the subject issue in fact pertains to appellant's right to life and personal liberty, and therefore, the present Writ Appeal is maintainable. This Court opines that the appellant cannot be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty affecting appellant's fundamental rights and human rights. \ \l I I l2

15. This Court opines that the present interlocutory order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.p.No.13822 ot 2025, (referred to and extracted above) is an order of moment and if there is no interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate power, there is likely to be an irreparable injury or serious injustice and hence, this Court opines that the present Writ Appeal is maintainabte and accordingly, sets-aside the order impugned dated O1.O5.2O25 passed in W.p.No.l3822 of 2O25 (referred to and extracted above) in exercise of its power under Clause 15 of the Letters patent, in view of the fact that if the appellant is not permitted to travel abroad at this stage to attend the book launch function of the appellant's late father scheduled on 19.O5.2025, it would amount to depriving the appellant of his right to life and personal liberty effecting appellant,s fundamental rights and human rights as well, since the very purpose of the appellant in approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.13822 ol 2O25 and the present Writ Appeal No.552 ol 2025 would be eventuatty defeated, if l3 the purpose for which the appellant approached this Court is not served in the interest of justice' rec rd tha

15. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on tthea ooellan t hereinona n tiarlie r occa ion d this Court bv filinqw. P.No. 30602 of2 24 assed interi m orders, dated 3 .LO.2 24 a pproache and this Cou rt I I ;t t r a '03 " weeks upon su Densl on of okout circu lar Court. a for " L7, Takinq into conside ratton:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts' judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i) 2013 vol15 SCC Page 570 ii) 2019 vol2 SCConline SC 2O48 iii) ArR 1967 SC 1836 ivj eara No.19 of the judgment reported in 2O23 (1) SCc 634 and ,;- prr. No.27 of the Full Bench of the judgment oi the Madhyapradesh High Court, dated 2L.O3.2OL7 in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others Vs' State of M.P.and Others, and vi) 2013 SCConline Madras 4092. 1 l4 c) The order, dated }O.LO,2O24 passed in W.P.No.3O6O2 of 2O24 where under the appellant herein on an earlier occasion travelled abroad. d) In the light of the discussion and conclusion arrived at para Nos.3 to 16 of the present judgment. e) The fact on record that at is not the case of the respondents that departure of the appellant from India will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India. The Writ Ao peal is dated 01.11 5.2025 llowed, the ord er rrnDuo ned, a ssed in W.P. o.1382 2of20 5is sct=si-de-and r.A.No.o2 of 2o25 and r.A.No.o3 of 2025 a re ordered as Draved for on the fo llowino conditi ons:- i) The appellant/petitioner is permitted to travel from Hyderabad to USA between O9.05.2O25 to 11.06.2025 and shall return back to Hyderabad on

11.06.2025. ii) The appellant shall provide the travel details and place of stay to the respondents herein. iii) The appellant shall provide necessary details regarding appellant's properties and bank accounts to the respondents herein. (.f I l5 iv) The appellant shall file an affidavit in the form of an undertaking that he will abide by all the conditions mentioned hereinabove. It is further observed that the Lookout Circular purportedly issued under FIR No.188/2O24, Chikkadpallly Police Station, 2L38/2024, CCS, Hyderabad, 23t7/2O24t CCS, Hyderabad, tO4/2O241 Lokeshwaram Police Station, 477/2024, Nirmal Town Police Station, 478/2024, Nirmal Town Police Station, LO4/2O24, Mudhole Police Station, L2L/2O24, Basara Police Station, 63L/2O25, Gachibowli Police Station, 262/2025, Nirmal Town Police Station shall stand 11.06.2025 to enable the suspended till appellant/petitioner to travel to USA by abiding the above said conditions. Further, as soon as the appellant/petitioner returns back to India on LL.fr6,2025, he shall inform the same to the respondents herein, However, there shall be no order as to costs. I I I I \ To t6 Miscellaneous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. t any, pending in this Writ l^ SD/. P. PADMANABHA RE DEPUTY REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. Hyderabad

2. The Commissroner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 3- The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Cyberabad,

4. The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police station, Nirmal District. 5. The Station House Officer, Mudhole Police station, Nirmal District. 6. The Station House Officer, Lokeshwaram Police station, Nirmal District. 7. The Station House Officer, Basara Police station, Nirmal District. B. The Station House Officer, Nirmal Town Police station, Nirmal District. 9. The Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police station, Hyderabad. 10. The Station Hr'luse Officer, Gachibowli Police station, Hyderabad. 11.One CC to SRI K.PRATIK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad lOUTl '13. Two CD Copies PSK. G CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:07105,t2025 \ I o a.) s \$ .?': F a \ h ,j :l ( i.. JUDGMENT W.A.No.S52 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 0 \2\ q