Ritwick Dutta v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12862/2023, CM APPL. 50673/2023 & CM APPL. 27411/2024 RITWICK DUTTA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abishek Jebaraj, Ms. A Reyna Shruti, Ms. Saloni Ambastha, Ms.

Sakshi Jain, Ms. S. Abinaya, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vikrant N Goyal, Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advs. for UoI.

Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 1.

The petition is for the quashment of the Look Out Circular ['LOC'] issued against the petitioner.

2.

As per the case set up by the petitioner, he is an advocate and has undertaken multiple activities with regard to the protection of the environment. He also claims to be an office-bearer at the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment- Trust (LIFE Trust) and that he is known for his professional work, leading to his serving as a resource person for various legal and academic institutions in India and across the world. 3.

On 19.04.2023, F.I.R bearing no. RC2202023E0013 was registered The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

against the petitioner and the LIFE Trust under Section 35 read with Sections 7, 8, 12(4)(vi), 37, and 39 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner as well as other officials at LIFE Trust were also summoned as witnesses and investigated for close to two weeks.

4.

Thereafter, the respondents, in WP (C) 12158/2023, disclosed to the petitioner that an LOC had been issued against him. This petition has been filed in order to set aside the said LOC.

5.

Mr. Trideep Pais, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been fully cooperating with the investigating agencyrespondent no. 2 and there is no instance where he has avoided the investigation in any manner whatsoever. It is submitted that either the petitioner or his representative have appeared before the concerned officers of respondent no. 2, namely, Inspector Manoj Kumar and ASP K.L. Moses on various dates. He furnishes a table listing the dates on which the petitioner has appeared before the concerned officers for investigation, and the same is extracted below, for reference:

S.no.

Inspector Manoj Kumar ASP K.L. Moses 1.

04.04.2024 19.05.2023 2.

05.04.2024 22.05.2023 3.

08.04.2024 23.05.2023 4.

09.04.2024 24.05.2023 5.

10.04.2024 25.05.2023 6.

12.04.2024 26.05.2023 7.

15.04.2024 29.05.2023 8.

16.04.2024 30.05.2023 9.

17.04.2024 31.05.2023 10.

18.04.2024 01.06.2023 11.

19.04.2024 05.06.2023 12.

21.04.2024 03.07.2023 13.

23.04.2024 04.07.2023 14.

24.04.2024 05.07.2023 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

15.

29.04.2024 07.07.2023 16.

10.05.2024 10.07.2023 17.

25.05.2024 11.07.2023 18.

26.05.2024 12.07.2023 19.

30.05.2024 - 20.

31.05.2024 - 21.

01.06.2024 - 22.

04.06.2024 - 23.

05.06.2024 - 24.

07.06.2024 - 25.

29.10.2024 - 26.

20.11.2024 - 6.

Further, he submits that the financial manager and accounts assistant of LIFE Trust have also appeared before the investigating agency on 44 occasions. He further submits that on twelve occasions, the petitioner has been allowed to travel abroad. The full details of the application, date of order, country to which he travelled and the date of travel etc. as furnished on behalf of the petitioner, are extracted as under: S. No.

Application No Order Date Country / Place Dates of Travel CM Appl. No.

58967/2023 23.11.2023 - 25.11.2023 Bonn, Germany 03.12.2023 - 08.12.2023 CM Appl. No.

9003/2024 10.11.2023 Geneva, Switzerland 14.02.2024 Oregon, USA 24.02.2024 - 04.03.2024 CM Appl. No.

27411/2024 10.05.2024 Italy 24.05.2024 - 30.06.2024 Thailand and Vietnam 03.06.2024 - 20.06.2024 CM Appl. No.

55320/2024 20.09.2024 Lisbon, Portugal 06.10.2024 - 13.10.2024 Cebu, Philippines 21.10.2024 - 28.10.2024 CM Appl. No.

66290/2024 23.11.2024 - 01.12.2024 Paris, France 14.12.2024 - 25.12.2024 CM Appl. No.

23168/2025 13.11.2024 Busan, Republic of Korea 22.04.2025 Manila, Philippines 26.04.2025 - 30.04.2025 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

CM Appl. No.

28868/2025 18.05.2025 - 26.05.2025 Singapore 29.05.2025 - 01.06.2025 Egypt 02.06.2025 - 10.06.2025 CM Appl. No.

31871/2025 13.05.2025 Paris and London 22.05.2025 Morocco 03.06.2025 - 11.06.2025 Austria and Poland 15.06.2025 - 28.06.2025 CM Appl. No.

43030/2025 06.08.2025 - 13.08.2025 CM Appl. No.

58601/2025 22.07.2025 Geneva, Switzerland 16.07.2025 Manila, Philippines 27.09.2025 - 01.10.2025 Hanoi, Vietnam 07.10.2025 - 12.10.2025 Cebu, Philippines 20.10.2025 - 26.10.2025 CM Appl. No.

67943/2025 31.10.2025 Rome, Italy 11.11.2025 - 13.11.2025 Paris, France 13.11.2025 - 20.11.2025 CM Appl. No.

2400/2026 14.01.2026 Amsterdam, Netherlands 27.01.2026 - 04.02.2026 7.

It is also stated that, on all occasions, upon returning from the concerned countries, the petitioner has reported to the authorities and has complied with all conditions imposed on him. The aforesaid position, as of now, remains undisputed.

8.

Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the CBI contends that a supplementary chargesheet against the petitioner has been presented before the CMM, Rouse Avenue Courts. The cognizance of the said chargesheet, however, has not yet been taken. 9.

This Court in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and Ors.1 has held that recourse to LOC can be taken in cases involving 1 ILD (2010) VI Delhi 706 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

cognizable offences, if the accused was deliberately evading non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures and there is likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

10.

Again, this Court in the case of Anant Raj Kanoria v. Union of India,2 was faced with almost similar facts and has held, therein, that the continued restraint imposed upon the subject of the LOC operates as an unwarranted restriction on his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The mechanical continuation of the LOC, despite the absence of necessity for the same, renders the restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly when the petitioner has neither evaded the process of law nor shown any inclination to obstruct the investigation. 11.

In the instant case, as per the CBI, chargesheet has been filed. The investigation seems to have been completed. Even otherwise, the petitioner undertakes that he will fully cooperate with the investigating agency. 12.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the time which has elapsed since the opening of the LOC, the Court finds that the purpose of the LOC has been served. Therefore, the LOC in question stands quashed with the following conditions:

i.

The petitioner to submit an undertaking on an affidavit before the CBI affirming that he shall continue to cooperate in the further investigation, if any, and shall appear before the investigating agency as and when required.

ii.

He shall produce all material documents requested from him by the investigating agency as may be available within his power/possession. iii.

Henceforth, he shall furnish a full itinerary before the investigating The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

agency seven days before undertaking any journey abroad. iv.

If the cognizance is taken, compliance of condition (iii) will have to take place before the concerned Court instead of the investigating agency.

v.

In case, the investigating agency or the concerned Court has any reservation about the petitioner's travel, they shall be entitled either to restrain him or to direct for issuance of fresh LOC. 13.

With the aforesaid directions, petition along with pending applications stands disposed of.

14.

The property papers or the security etc., which the petitioner was required to deposit before this Court be returned/refunded on retaining a photocopy thereof.

15.

List before the Joint Registrar for compliance on 23.02.2026. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 2, 2026/p/amg 2 Order dated 09.01.2026 in W.P. (C) 3313/2023 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.