Nalin Kumar Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
!"#"
$%&''( NALIN KUMAR SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
)% *+) ' ,- ,' .....
!"
# $
%
#&
'(
)#
* #
%
+(,
#-
./ 0
1 *
/
%2 3
(
$
%
3
%2 44444 - ,' /'0 123 Challenge in the present petition is to the Look Out Circular issued by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in case arising in FIR No. 171 dated 18.09.2025 registered under Sections 318(4) and 61 of BNS at Police Station DLF-II, Gurugram.
2.
On 03.12.2025, the following order was passed:-
!"
$ !"
%
!&'
!%(")* +' , " -. / 0' (" "1 2. 3
" "
4 " *
5 1
6 -27-7 2 1
8-79 2# /8 : "
%;" "
< " " :
9 ;" "
"" ="
" " " "
" %
"
"
5 64%
(" "
;"
" "
"
"
1
> <
;"
% ;"
'
"
"
/<" "" " "
5 <"
6
" % $ <
" ;" " .
"
"
< = ? " ;"
;" " $!" "
"
" :
!" !"
@ #'! " ;" % $ < "
"= !"
$ < " = ?
""
!" "
"
"
" " $ !"
" " 1 $ :
< !"
"
6
"" "5
;
A <
" "
"
" 1
;
A 6 " # !"
" " . $ 3.
Thereafter, even on second occasion, similar permission to travel abroad was granted by this Court vide its order dated 19.01.2026 which reads thus:-
! $ # 8 98 B
98 88 $ !"
!"
!A% C 68%
1
8
0% 1 1
"" " /5
;
.
"
"
"
"
7 ! (" 1
;
A 6 "> $!"
" " ?
!" 1
! B"
D"" <
" " ;"
8 88 ! -$# 2 B - 2
:
"0% 1 * ! $ # 8 98E . ! $ # B
98 88 !
* 88 !" "
= " ' <
"
;
98 $ !"
"
1$ $" 4 ' . /4DDA "
!;"
" " " 5
;
<
" "
"
! -$# 2
B - 2
"1
;
A "88 # !"
" " . $ 4.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that Look Out Circular is ordinarily issued where a person is not joining investigation or associating with the same and there is a strong possibility of flight risk. He submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and his anticipatory bail already stands confirmed in CRM-M66856-2025. Thus it cannot be assumed that the petitioner is absconding from the process of law. The LOC has thus been issued against the petitioner only for the reasons that the petitioner is a frequent traveller and there was a possibility of the petitioner absconding from the process of law. The said apprehension or suspicion is no longer well founded and is misplaced.
He further contends that the petitioner would in any case be bound by the terms and conditions as prescribed under Section 482 (2) BNSS in relation to his travels abroad. Considering the facts that he is on bail, the exigency of work and that he has already joined investigation and has clean antecedents, there is no reason for keeping the LOC open against the petitioner herein. 5.
Learned State Counsel is not in a position to give any valid justification for keeping the LOC open more so when the only apprehension expressed by the respondent-State is that of the petitioner absconding from the process of law whereas sufficient safeguard has already been prescribed under Section 482(2) BNSS.
8 6.
In view of the undisputed facts as aforesaid, the clean antecedents of the petitioner, he having travelled abroad on permission granted by this Court and having come back on time and surrendering before the authorities alongwith the fact that the petitioner has been granted concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court, I find no valid justification for keeping the LOC open and surviving against the petitioner. Consequently, the letter dated 13.10.2025 confirming issuance of LOC against the petitioner herein by the respondent No.2 is set aside. The State is further directed to withdraw its request for LOC against the petitioner, in the present case. The present petition is accordingly allowed. 7.
The petitioner shall nonetheless remain bound to comply with the terms and conditions as prescribed under Section 482(2) BNSS. 0- ,' 3 ) &/( ,
$ - , #9
% :93 -
; :93