सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अभियुक्तों के खिलाफ लुक‑आउट सर्कुलर जारी करने के अधिकार पर MHA की प्रतिक्रिया मांगी

<p>While suspending the look-out circular opened by CBI against one Nimesh Navinchandra Shah, the Supreme Court today called for the Ministry of Home Affairs' response on the power to issue look-out circulars.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal (for petitioner) and ASG DP Singh (for CBI).</p><p>This is the case where the Court recently questioned CBI over the stopping of an accused - the petitioner - at the airport, due to an LOC opened against him, despite the jurisdictional Court having granted permission to travel abroad.</p><p>The petitioner is being prosecuted both by the CBI and the ED after the account of a company he joined was declared a Non Performing Asset. He has obtained bail in the CBI case, but two LOCs have been opened against him - one, by the CBI, and another, by a Bank.</p><p>While the LOC issued against the petitioner's wife has been quashed, the one issued against him by the Bank is pending challenge before the High Court. The CBI LOC against the petitioner was challenged before the High Court as well, but his plea was rejected. As such, he approached the Supreme Court.</p><p>Earlier this month, while questioning the CBI over stopping of the petitioner at the airport despite court permission to travel, the Court called for Standard Operating Procedure regarding issuance of LOCs against accused persons.</p><p>From a larger perspective, the bench wondered why the LOC could not be served upon the accused and/or the accused intimated about issuance of such LOC. "LOC is not a confidential document" remarked Justice Nath, noting that as per CBI's own office memorandum, reasons have to be given, and if they are not given, an LOC cannot be acted upon.</p><p>In compliance with the last order, the CBI placed on record the LOC opened against the petitioner as well as an Office Memorandum under which LOCs are apparently opened.</p><p>Referring to the same, Aggarwal assailed the fact that an LOC was opened against the petitioner in 2022 but he was not intimated about it for over 3 years. The senior counsel emphasized that the CBI kept renewing the LOC based on its internal OM, while there was no way for the petitioner to know about the OM and/or challenge it.</p><p>Ultimately, when Singh told the Court that MHA would be a necessary party, the Court directed its impleadment. Meanwhile, it suspended the LOC opened against the petitioner.</p><p>Case Title: NIMESH NAVINCHANDRA SHAH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 3288/2026</p>