Veeravel v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl(MD)No.1359 of 2026 Veeravel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula, Race Course Road, Madurai District.

4.Muthukannu ... Respondents PRAYER :-Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps for issuing a look-out circular against the 4th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Maharaja For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) 1/5

For R3 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Central Government Standing Counsel

ORDER

Seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to 8 necessary steps for issuing a look-out circular against the 4th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 04.02.2026, this writ petition is filed.

2. Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) submitted that at the instance of the petitioner, already a First Information Report in Crime No.82 of 2024 as against the 4th respondent who is none other than the petitioner's brother, was registered, which had culminated in laying a charge sheet in C.C.No.313 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, in which already trial had commenced. As many as 5 witnesses were examined and the trial is pending for examination of the Investigation Officer. Under such circumstances, when the 4th respondent is very much available in India, only on the apprehension that he may flew to another country, the petitioner has given representation on 04.02.2026 to issue a look-out circular.

2/5

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent categorically contended that based on apprehension of the petitioner, look-out circular cannot be issued as against the 4th respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that he is appearing regularly before the trial Court, I do not find any merit in the writ petition seeking to direct the respondent to issue a look-out circular. Hence, there is no prima facie case made out.

7. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if at all he absconds and an Non Bailable Warrant is likely to be issued in future. No costs. 10.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No gbg 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula, Race Course Road, Madurai District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J gbg W.P.Crl(MD)No.1359 of 2026 10.03.2026 5/5