NTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE v. SHRAVAN KUMAR Between

...REspoNDENrs Petition under Article 226 o'( the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 in issuing the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the Petitioner basing on the requisition of the Respondent No. 3 in connection with the case in Cr. No. 872 oI 2025, dt. 15-08-2025 for the offence punishable under sections 85, 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act without being the notice under section 35(3) of BNSS is unjust, illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to recall the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner in respect of Cr. No. 872 of 2025, dt. 15-OB-2025 for the offence punishable under sections 85, 1i5(2) of BNS and sections 3 ando4 of D.P. Act IA NO: 1 0F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated iin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to withdraw/close the LOC issued in connection rfuith Cr. No. 872 of 2025, dt. 15-08-2025 for the offence .punishable under sections 85, 115(2) ol BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act of P.S, Rajendra Nagar, pending disposal of the main case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHARAD SANGHI > Counsel for Respondent Nos. I to 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for ResPondent No. 4; --- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: W.P. No.27264 of 2o25 This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the Look Out Circular against the petitioner based on the requisition of the respondent No.3 in connection with the case in Cr.No.872 of 2025 dated 15'O8.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act without being notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent No.2 to recall the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the p"etitioner got married with the respondent No.4 on 27.O7.2011 and @Ut of their wedlock they were blessed with three children- ,. fu petitioner, along with the respondent No.4, went to Doha, Qatar in $q year 2Ol4 for pursuing his M.D. course and after completion of dig said M.D. sourse, and in order to p.ursue super speciality in Respiratory Medicines, got admission and completed the course in Dudley Group Foundation NHS Trust, England, U.K in the year 2022. Thereafter, the petitioner got appointed at eueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and was issued an offer letter on 09.06.2025 by frxing one year period from O3.O9.2O25 to 04.01.2026 and another offer letter dated 08.09.2025. Before joining at eueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and in order to spend some time with his children and aged parents, petitioner returned to India for short vacation on ) \- \ =- --'1 L2.Oa.2O25 and as per the schedule, on 31.O8.2O25, petitioner. I reported at RGIA, Hyderabad for resuming and reporting to duty at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, wherein the petitioner wa's intercepted bv the Immigration Authorities on 31.08.2025 on the pretext of a Look Out Notice being issued by the respondent No.2 on the requisition oi the respondent No.3 in connection rvith a criminal case in Cr.No.872 of 2025 dated 15.08.2O25 and as a result, the petitioner was handed over to the respondent No.3 and after completing the formalities, he was left free.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not aware about registering the case in Cr.No.872 of 2025 dated 15.o8.2025 till he was intercepted by the Immigration Authorities it is his lurther case that he was not se rvcd with the mandatory notice as required under Section 35(3) of BNSS. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 called the petitioner on O1.O9.2025 and issued the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and recording the statement, returned the Ptrssport on

04.O9.2025 by taking acknowledgment' It is furthcr submitted that the respondent No '1 was not 4. cooperating with the 1;etitioner and not agreeing to join into conjugal on the other hand, demanding tc' settle at company at U.K. and Australia and the issut: was not settling, despite intervention of elders and well wishers. Therefore, the petitioner got issued TALAQ notice dated O6.Oa-2 O22 and filed O.P. No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking relief to declare the Talaq /, / \- .7 J notice is valid and binding on the respondent No.4 and the matter is pending.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 lodged a complaint with the respondent No.3 as a result, case in Cr.No.872 of 2025 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner's children are with the custody of petitioner through his parents and he has been spending amounts towards their welfare and if the LOC issued by the respondent No.2 continuing, not only the future prospects of the petitioner but a-lso his children future will be affected as such, it is just and necessary to recall the LOC issued by the respondent No.2.

6. Eventually, it is submitted that under similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P. No.37448 ol 2022 directing the SHO therein to address a letter to the Commissioner of Police, who shall address a letter to ttre Immigration Authorities to close the LOC issued against the petitioner therein and prayed to pass similar order. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to para 4 of the said order wherein, it is observed that based on the orders passed by this Court, the Director General of Police has already issued instructions to all the concerned by Circular, dated 01.07.2022, wh,.ereby whenever Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice is issued/whenever the bail is obtained by the accused, concerned Police shall address a letter to the Commissioner arrd the Cornmissioner in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC. nJ \ 4 ^ T. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader .opy of th. for Home appt:aring for the respondents No. 1 to 3 pjaced written instructions dated 15.09.2O25 wherein it is stated that based on a complaint lodged by the respondent No.4, Cr.No.872 of 2025 dated 15.O8.2025 was registered and inspite of issuing notice dated Ol.Og.2O25 under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the pertitioner/accused, he did not cooperate with the investigating agency and trying to leave . end if the Look Out Circular against the the India a.l. petitioner/ accused is *ithd."-.r, the petitioner u'ili escape from criminal tiabilities and may not cooperate with investigation agency. It is lurther submitted that FIR No-872 of 2025 dated 15.08.2025 has _-"O.o"O alreadY been file d' g. In view of the above, recording the submissions made by the learned counscl on either side, since FIR No.872 of 2025 has already been registt:red and the matter is pending before the trial Court, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for filing an application before the trial Court for travelling abroad and if the petitioner obl ains travel permission from the concerned Court, then the respondent No.3, SHO, Rajendra Nagar, is directed to address a letter to the respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner ,lf Police, who shall forward the same to the Commissioner of Police, CJ,berabad, who in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that till the petitioner obtetins travel permission from the concerned trial Court i.e. r l. \__ '7 5 the XI Additional judiciar Magistrate of pirstcrass court of cyberabad. ' at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, the LOC opened against the petitioner shall continue. 9 Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellareous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd1. A. SREENIVAS REDDY ASSTSTANT RfGTSTRAR /e- SECTIITN OFFICER To, 1

2. 3 \

4. 5. 6. 7. MBC The Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. The Principal Secretary, Home Department Government of Telangana, Dr. B. R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad. Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Rajendra Naggar, Rajendra Nagar. One CC to Sri Sharad Sanghi Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies HIGH COUBT NVSK,J DATED: 1011012025 t oR Ti.}€ s 1 / 0[I 2025 )- L) ;! {; \r,tril ORDER WP.No.;i!7264 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WFIIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -J W''-< 4o16