Srinivas R v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The Commissioner Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Srinivas R Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

2.The Inspector of Police, Forgery investigation Wing, Beta-9, CCB, Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007 (Crime No.234 of 2024) 3.Bureau of Immigration, Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

Respondents PRAYER This criminal original petition is preferred under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to direct the respondents to lift the look out circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.234 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and permit the petitioner to travel abroad for employment 1/11

purposes, subject to reasonable conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and thus render justice.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Arun Anbumani, for Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal side) for R1 and R2

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in Crime No.234 of 2024 for the offences under sections 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2), 318(4) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, filed the present petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to lift the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner. 2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, later added as an accused. The cases in Crime Nos.233 and 234 of 2024 registered on the complaint of the Additional Director / Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Kilpauk, Chennai. The case against the petitioner is that during the PG Medical counselling for the academic year 2024-25, some students have submitted documents for the NRI quota and on verification of the same with the respective Embassies, they were found to be forged and hence, a complaint has 2/11

been given and a case came to be registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the medical practitioner who has completed his MBBS course in the year 2009 and is running a hospital 'Kathir Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd.' in Kelambakkam main road, Kandigai, Melakottaiyur, Chennai. He also operates an EdTech firm in Berlin, Germany and having an office at Neelankarai, Chennai under the name 'Edicine LLP & Methodder LLP' by providing learning management systems and educational content to the medical institutions worldwide. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner firm also offers faculty development programs and human resource services for medical colleges abroad and his major clients are in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Dubai and Malaysia and because of his nature of business, he requires frequent travel abroad for client meetings, faculty interaction and also for programme of management system installation and training.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on coming to know about the registration of the case, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail petitions before this court in Crl.O.P.Nos.11649 and 11729 of 2025 and anticipatory bail was granted on 23.04.2025. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondents police and to cooperate with the enquiry. The petitioner on 29.04.2025 went to Srilanka and the immigration authorities had 3/11

restrained and detained him informing that a Look Out Circular [LOC] has been issued against him.

4.It is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner has furnished necessary sureties and has complied with the bail conditions. He also regularly appears before the respondents and is cooperating with the investigation. It is his further submission that now, a substantial portion of investigation completed and continuation of the LOC is not required. Further, the petitioner's business demands regular travel to foreign countries, otherwise his business prospects would be affected and it will lead to financial constraints and liability. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the right to travel is the fundamental right which has been reiterated in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India dated 25.01.1978 reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, followed till date.

The learned counsel has further submitted that to show the bona fide of the petitioner that he will not flee from justice, he would comply with the court's directions and that he would be available. The petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient sureties of blood relatives and his wife would also stand as surety. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for a direction to lift the LOC issued against the petitioner in connection with crime no.234 of 2024.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has strongly opposed this petition and he has submitted that the case has been registered on the basis of the complaint by the Additional Director / Secretary Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Chennai. It has been submitted that during the online medical PG counselling for the academic year 2024-25, it was found that 46 PG candidates submitted forged NRI bona fide certificates. 11 PG candidates confessed that they obtained necessary certificates from Sri Sai Consultancy, Pallavaram, Chennai. It was disclosed they interacted with the petitioner over phone.

The petitioner, Tinku Udayamoorthy, Kuran Azad, Maheswaran and Nirmalarasan were in constant touch with the candidates over phone and they obtained candidates' personal data, ID proofs, mark sheets through Whatsapp and instructed them to share the OTP. It was submitted that the candidates with the hope of getting seats shared details and now found submitting forged documents. During search at the Sri Sai Consultancy, Pallavaram, Chennai, three numbers of Solid State drive and two numbers of hard disk and other incriminating documents seized. The seized electronic devices sent for forensic examination and awaiting forensic report. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that once forensic report received, charge sheet to be filed.

5/11

6.At this stage, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad, he will abscond and the case would get further delayed and protracted. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed that the LOC No.2025413052 may not be lifted. Further, the petitioner has not given details with regard to the country he intends to travel and how long he intends to stay there. Hence, it is submitted that after filing of charge sheet and after framing of charges, the petitioner can be permitted to travel with suitable conditions. 7.The petitioner filed a reply today informing that the petitioner has nothing to do with the hard disks and the other incriminating materials said to have been collected from the said Sri Sai Consultancy, and it is learnt that one Mr.

Tinku Udhayamoorthy owns the said firm. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further reiterated that he has got deep social roots in the society and resides with his family members and children. His wife can stand surety for him and the petitioner will not evade justice. 8.Considering the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of materials available on record, it is seen that a case came to be registered in Crime No.

Research, Chennai that during the online medical PG counselling held for the academic year 2024-25, it was found that some students have submitted forged NRI bona fide certificates. The petitioner's name has been later included in the case and now investigation is proceeding. It is the submission that the petitioner needs to travel abroad for his business needs. It is to be seen that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail with conditions by order dated 23.04.2025 and the petitioner has been complying with the anticipatory bail conditions and he is appearing before the respondents police. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is also cooperating with the investigation. It is also seen that the petitioner has got business interest in abroad and he needs to travel for his business purpose and the LOC is acting as an obstacle for the petitioner going abroad.

9.In view of the above facts and in the light of the submissions made above, there is no necessity for the Look Out Circular in force which has been issued against the petitioner. The Right to travel is a fundamental right of the petitioner. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India dated 25.01.1978 reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, has been followed even today. Hence there is no impediment to the petitioner to have a free travel. The continued operation of the LOC operates as a restraint on the petitioner's personal liberty and the right to travel under Article 21 of the 7/11

Constitution of India. In the absence of any supervening circumstance justifying a restriction on the petitioner's right to travel abroad for the purpose of investigation, the continued operation of the LOC is unwarranted. Mere pendency of the investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged operation of the LOC.

10.In the light of the above narrative, this Court keeps in abeyance the Look Out Circular in LOC(s) [2025413052] issued against the petitioner in Crime No.234 of 2024 for a period of six months, with the following conditions:

(i)The petitioner holder of Passport No.R4753482 is free to travel without any restriction in and out of India for a period of six months. (ii)The petitioner shall not be detained by immigration or any other authorities.

(iii)The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with one surety being the wife of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the second respondent police. 8/11

(iv)The petitioner shall also deposit the title deeds of property worth Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for CCB & CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai. (v)The petitioner shall inform the second respondent police and also to file a memo before the concerned Magistrate Court about his travel details such as date of departure and arrival, place of stay and his contact details like mobile number and email address.

(vi)The petitioner further travel after the six months can be considered by the trial Court if the petitioner not violated the above conditions and cooperated in the progress of the case.

11.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of. 10-06-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vvk 9/11

To 1.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for CCB & CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai city, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector of Police, Foregery Investigation Wing, Beta -9, CCB, Chennai Vepery, Chennai-600 007 (Crime no.234 of 2024) 4.The Bureau of immigration, Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.

5.The Government Advocate (Criminal side) Madras High Court, Chennai.

10/11

M.NIRMAL KUMAR., J.

vvk CRL OP No. 33195 of 10-06-2026 11/11