MUMBAI: No reason has been mentioned in the Look Out Circular (LOCs), as to why their issuance was warranted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), except for mentioning and giving a gist of the FIR, observed the Bombay high court quashing the ones issued against Rhea Chakraborty, 31 and her brother Showik, 27, and parents Lt. Colonel Indrajit Chakraborty, a retired Indian Army officer, and Sandhya Chakraborty (Veteran), 57, in connection with the suicide abetment case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2020.
The HC on Thursday pronouncing its ruling in three separate quashing petitions filed by Rhea, Showik and her parents said there was nothing to show that the LOC issued has been reviewed after 2020. The case had after an August 2020 order of the Supreme Court been transferred to the CBI.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande said what is “pertinent’’ was that it is not even the CBI case that the petitioners, except Rhea, is a flight risk. “All the petitioners have roots in India,” the HC observed adding the right to travel is a fundamental right which can’t be curtailed without reason, especially when LOC guidelines mandates reasons be given.
The Chakraborty family argued that the LOC was wrongly issued and amounted to an unwarranted flouting of their fundamental rights.
The CBI said it was issued against Rhea on a “reasonable apprehension of her fleeing away and not joining the investigation or trial.’’
The HC said the reason was not mentioned in the LOC, which only mentions the FIR and contents of the FIR.
The HC said when it questioned the special PP whether in every CBI case, on registration of an FIR, an LOC is issued, the answer was in the negative. “It is thus clear that clause (H) which mentions “reasons for opening LOC” means recording of the satisfaction of the authority for issuing LOCs. It is pertinent to note, that LOC is issued where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures or there is a likelihood of the accused or person leaving the country to evade prosecution…’’
In neither LOC was any satisfactory reason given as required under the “consolidated guidelines’’ the HC said adding in any case the Chakrabortys participated and cooperated with the investigation and were last called for questioning in September 2021.
Besides, there s there is already a condition imposed on the petitioners-Showik and Rhea, in an NDPS case, not to leave the country, without the permission of the Court, the HC added.
The HC refused a plea by CBI for a stay of its judgment.
The HC on Thursday pronouncing its ruling in three separate quashing petitions filed by Rhea, Showik and her parents said there was nothing to show that the LOC issued has been reviewed after 2020. The case had after an August 2020 order of the Supreme Court been transferred to the CBI.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande said what is “pertinent’’ was that it is not even the CBI case that the petitioners, except Rhea, is a flight risk. “All the petitioners have roots in India,” the HC observed adding the right to travel is a fundamental right which can’t be curtailed without reason, especially when LOC guidelines mandates reasons be given.
The Chakraborty family argued that the LOC was wrongly issued and amounted to an unwarranted flouting of their fundamental rights.
The CBI said it was issued against Rhea on a “reasonable apprehension of her fleeing away and not joining the investigation or trial.’’
The HC said the reason was not mentioned in the LOC, which only mentions the FIR and contents of the FIR.
The HC said when it questioned the special PP whether in every CBI case, on registration of an FIR, an LOC is issued, the answer was in the negative. “It is thus clear that clause (H) which mentions “reasons for opening LOC” means recording of the satisfaction of the authority for issuing LOCs. It is pertinent to note, that LOC is issued where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures or there is a likelihood of the accused or person leaving the country to evade prosecution…’’
In neither LOC was any satisfactory reason given as required under the “consolidated guidelines’’ the HC said adding in any case the Chakrabortys participated and cooperated with the investigation and were last called for questioning in September 2021.
Besides, there s there is already a condition imposed on the petitioners-Showik and Rhea, in an NDPS case, not to leave the country, without the permission of the Court, the HC added.
The HC refused a plea by CBI for a stay of its judgment.