Overview
The Supreme Court on 21 April 2026 asked the CBI to formulate a SOP for issuing LOC. The directive arose after the petitioner, Nimesh Navinchandra Shah, was barred from travelling despite a court‑granted bail permission.
Key Developments
- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned why the LOC was not served to the accused.
- The petitioner had obtained bail in the CBI case, yet two LOCs (one by CBI, one by a bank) were still operative.
- Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal argued that the LOC was treated as a confidential document, depriving the accused of any pre‑ or post‑decision hearing.
- Justice Mehta suggested that the passport could be deposited with the court as a condition, instead of a blanket travel ban.
- The Court directed the CBI to place the LOC on record and to submit a detailed SOP.
Important Facts
The petitioner’s chargesheet was filed without arrest, and the ED also pursued the case after the company’s accounts were declared a Non‑Performing Asset. The High Court had dismissed his plea to quash the LOC, prompting the Supreme Court intervention.
Justice Nath emphasized that an LOC, being a non‑confidential document, must disclose reasons for issuance, as per the CBI’s own memorandum. Justice Mehta highlighted that impounding a passport without a specific bail condition violates the accused’s right to free movement.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the procedural safeguards around