Reasonable Time-Limit for Continuation of Look-Out Circulars Against Non-Accused Foreign Nationals Without an Extradition Treaty

Introduction

The Madras High Court in Karthik Parthiban v. The Superintendent of Police (2025 MHC 1292) grappled with a persisting Look-Out Circular (“LOC”) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a foreign national who has not yet been arrayed as an accused in the underlying criminal case involving a ₹500-crore bank-fraud investigation.

The petitioner, a Seychellois citizen, previously obtained court permission to travel abroad on three occasions and duly returned each time. Nonetheless, the LOC continued to restrict his movement. He invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) to seek quashing of the LOC or, at the very least, its withdrawal.

The core issues were:

Whether an LOC can lawfully subsist against a person who is not (yet) an accused when he has been cooperating with the probe.
What temporal limits—if any—apply to the continuation of such LOCs.
How courts must balance the investigative interests of the State with the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy declined to quash the LOC outright, holding that the CBI’s apprehension of flight risk was reasonable because:

The petitioner is a citizen of Seychelles, a country with which India has no extradition treaty.
The magnitude of the fraud (hundreds of crores) and its systemic ramifications warranted robust investigative safeguards.

However, acknowledging the potential infringement of Article 21, the Court injected a proportionality-based limitation: the CBI must complete its further investigation within one year. Failing that, the petitioner may re-approach the Court to have the LOC quashed.

Additionally, the Court granted the petitioner conditional leave to travel to Malaysia for a family wedding between 17 June 2025 and 10 July 2025, imposing stringent undertakings, bonds, sureties, and surrender of passport to the Indian High Commission abroad.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration, W.P. 21305/2017 (Madras DB) – Established that once an accused is cooperating and regularly appearing before the Court, an LOC ordinarily loses its rationale. The present judgment distinguished, rather than followed, this precedent on factual grounds.
Implicit reliance on Article 21 jurisprudence from the Supreme Court (e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597) underscoring that any restraints on personal liberty must follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure.
Section 173(8) CrPC line of cases permitting “further investigation” even after a chargesheet is filed.

The Court recognised the Karti precedent but opted for a stricter approach because that case involved an Indian citizen and distinct factual stakes.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court anchored its reasoning on a three-pronged proportionality test:

Legitimate Aim: Prevent potential flight of a suspect in a high-value, multi-jurisdictional fraud where extradition would be practically impossible.
Rational Connection: Continuation of an LOC is a rational tool to secure presence of such an individual.
Necessity and Balancing: Indefinite continuation would disproportionately impinge on Article 21. To mitigate this, the Court imposed a one-year cap for completion of investigation and crafted a meticulous travel framework.

This framework marries investigative necessity with constitutional proportionality, creating a “rolling review” mechanism rather than blanket immunity or perpetual restraint.

3. Impact

The decision sets a nuanced precedent that:

Recognises the State’s heightened equities where the suspect is a foreign national from a non-extradition country.
Introduces a “reasonable time-bound continuation” rule for LOCs against non-accused individuals—effectively preventing investigative lethargy.
Signals to investigative agencies that LOCs cannot be allowed to fossilise; they must either crystalise into formal charges or be withdrawn.
Offers a template of stringent but practical travel conditions, balancing liberty and law-enforcement concerns.

Expect future litigants to invoke this one-year yardstick in analogous contexts, compelling agencies to accelerate complex probes or justify delays with cogent reasons.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Look-Out Circular (LOC): A directive circulated to immigration checkpoints to detain or at least alert authorities when a specified individual attempts to leave or enter the country.
Writ of Mandamus: A high-court or Supreme Court order compelling a public authority to perform a public/legal duty.
Section 173(8) CrPC (Further Investigation): Allows police to continue probing even after submission of a chargesheet, subject to court oversight.
Extradition Treaty: A bilateral agreement obligating two nations to hand over persons wanted for prosecution or punishment in the requesting state.
Article 21: Guarantees every person (citizen or non-citizen) the right to life and personal liberty, broadly interpreted to include the right to travel.

Conclusion

Karthik Parthiban refines Indian LOC jurisprudence by introducing a temporal ceiling on the continuation of LOCs against cooperative, yet un-arraigned, foreign nationals, especially from countries lacking extradition arrangements. While preserving the integrity of big-ticket financial investigations, the Court reaffirmed that fundamental rights cannot be placed in indefinite suspense.

The key takeaways are:

Courts will subject LOCs to proportionality analysis, balancing investigatory objectives with personal liberty.
Investigative agencies now shoulder an implicit one-year deadline—subject to judicial extensions only on demonstrable necessity.
Conditional travel permissions (with passport surrender, financial bonds, and sureties) remain a preferred judicial tool to calibrate competing interests.

The judgment therefore charts a middle path—neither diluting the deterrent potency of LOCs nor countenancing their indefinite stagnation—thereby enriching Indian public-law jurisprudence on movement rights vis-à-vis transnational economic offences.