Look Out Circular Cannot Be A Perpetual Sword On Liberty — Madras High Court Directs CBI to Conclude Probe Within a Year

“Being a Foreign National Without Extradition Treaty Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention” —  In a significant ruling Madras High Court, through Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, holding that the continuation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against a foreign national cannot be indefinite and must be subject to reasonable timelines. The Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conclude its investigation within one year, failing which the LOC must be reconsidered.

The petitioner, Karthik Parthiban, a citizen of Seychelles, had approached the Court seeking quashing of the LOC issued against him in connection with a massive bank fraud case involving over ₹500 Crores, contending that despite not being named as an accused, his liberty was being curtailed for an unreasonable period.

“Right to Life Under Article 21 Cannot Be Suspended Indefinitely Based On Mere Suspicion” — Court Emphasizes LOC Is Not A Substitute For Prosecution

The Court observed in unequivocal terms:

“A person cannot be indefinitely restrained merely based on suspicion without being made an accused. Such indefinite restraint infringes upon the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

It further stressed that:

“While the power to issue a Look Out Circular is a valid tool for law enforcement, it cannot be used perpetually as a preventive weapon without formal prosecution or reasonable progress in investigation.”

“Zonal Jurisdiction Cannot Become a Black Hole for Liberty” — Court Rejects CBI’s Defence of Complexity Without Progress

Responding to the CBI’s argument that the case involves “complex transnational financial fraud involving multiple jurisdictions”, the Court made it clear:

“The complexity of the investigation cannot be a license for eternal delay. The agency cannot expect an individual, especially a foreign national, to remain indefinitely confined to the country without charge, without end, and without remedy.”

“Lack of Extradition Treaty With Seychelles Cannot Justify Unlimited Restraint” — Court Rejects Fear-Driven Arguments

The CBI had submitted that since the petitioner is a Seychelles citizen, with whom India has no extradition treaty, he poses a significant flight risk.

The Court answered firmly: “The mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen of Seychelles and India has no extradition treaty cannot by itself justify the indefinite continuation of the LOC. Such reasoning cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”

“LOC Cannot Be A Substitute For Active Prosecution — Investigate or Let Go” — Court Sets Hard Deadline For CBI

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy issued an unambiguous direction: “The CBI is directed to complete the investigation within one year from today. If no case is established against the petitioner, the LOC shall stand revoked. If the petitioner is added as an accused, then the LOC may continue subject to the judicial process.”

The Court reminded the agency: “The investigation cannot continue in perpetuity. An endless LOC without framing charges or formal accusation is neither fair nor constitutional.”

“Repeated Voluntary Returns By Petitioner Prove Bona Fides” — Court Temporarily Suspends LOC For Family Reasons

Noting that the petitioner had complied with travel conditions on three previous occasions, the Court remarked:

“The petitioner has demonstrated good faith by returning to India on each occasion when permitted. He cannot be treated as a fugitive when his conduct shows the opposite.”

Granting the petitioner permission to attend his brother’s wedding in Malaysia, the Court directed: “The LOC shall be suspended for the duration of the petitioner’s travel from 17.06.2025 to 10.07.2025, subject to strict conditions ensuring his return.”

“LOC Cannot Convert Investigation Into Life Sentence Without Trial” — Court Balances Sovereign Interest With Individual Rights

The Court powerfully concluded: “Law enforcement cannot hold a LOC as a perpetual sword over an individual’s head without crystallizing the allegations into a charge. Either prosecute with diligence or let the citizen — Indian or foreign — reclaim their liberty.”

With these sharp observations, the Court dismissed the writ petition only to the extent of quashing the LOC outright, instead imposing a strict one-year deadline on the CBI to either complete the investigation and charge the petitioner or withdraw the LOC.

“Liberty is too precious to be hostage to bureaucratic delay,” the Court summed up.

Date of Decision: 04 June 2025