Look Out Circular Temporarily Suspended: Delhi High Court Allows Hospital Operator To Travel Abroad For Conferences, Imposes ₹25 Lakh Security And Strict Conditions
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the applicant’s request for temporary suspension of the Look Out Circular dated 18.12.2020 to enable foreign travel to the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Switzerland from 09.06.2026 to 23.06.2026 for attending professional healthcare-related conferences and events.
However, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the applicant’s return, continued cooperation with the SFIO investigation, and availability if urgently required by the Investigating Officer.
Facts
The applicant sought suspension of the LOC to travel abroad for attending multiple professional events, including healthcare and AI-driven healthcare conferences in Manchester, London, Amsterdam and Geneva.
The applicant submitted that he runs a hospital and that attendance at these events was important for professional and business purposes. It was also argued that he had earlier been granted permission to travel abroad on four occasions, and each time he had returned to India within the stipulated period while complying with the Court’s conditions.
Issues
The main issue before the Court was whether the LOC should be temporarily suspended once again to allow foreign travel, despite SFIO’s objection that the investigation was still ongoing and at a crucial stage.
The Court also considered whether past compliance with travel permissions and verified travel documents were sufficient to dilute the apprehension of the applicant being a flight risk.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant argued that the travel was for legitimate professional purposes and that the conferences were relevant to his work in the healthcare sector.
He relied on previous orders by which the Court had granted him permission to travel abroad, stating that he had returned to India each time and had not misused the liberty granted by the Court.
The applicant also expressed willingness to abide by any condition imposed by the Court.
SFIO’s Objections
SFIO opposed the application, arguing that this was the fifth successive request for suspension of the LOC within about thirteen months, and repeated permissions had practically kept the LOC suspended despite investigation still being underway.
SFIO submitted that the investigation concerned serious financial irregularities affecting a large number of investors and that the applicant’s continued physical availability was necessary.
It was also argued that the applicant had failed to fully comply with an earlier undertaking to furnish documents, and complete financial and banking records had not been provided despite repeated requests. SFIO contended that foreign travel could not be repeatedly sought while simultaneously failing to provide documents required for investigation.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the applicant had previously been permitted to travel abroad on four occasions and that there was no allegation that he had misused the liberty granted earlier. The Court also recorded that he had returned to India within the stipulated period each time.
The Court further noted that the proposed travel documents, flight bookings, invitations and conference-related communications had been placed on record and that the existence of the events was not disputed.
The Court also considered earlier observations that the applicant’s family was settled in Chandigarh and that he had “deep roots in society”, which substantially reduced the apprehension of flight risk.
At the same time, the Court did not ignore SFIO’s concern that documents earlier undertaken to be furnished had allegedly not been fully supplied. Therefore, furnishing relevant documents to the Investigating Officer was made a condition for permission to travel.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court balanced two competing concerns.
On one side, the applicant had a record of returning to India after earlier travel permissions and had placed verified professional reasons for travel.
On the other side, SFIO was conducting an ongoing investigation and required documents and cooperation from the applicant.
The Court therefore allowed temporary travel but ensured that the permission was not unconditional. It imposed financial security, return obligations, document compliance, travel disclosure, non-tampering conditions and a requirement to return within 48 hours if summoned by the Investigating Officer.
Conditions Imposed
The applicant was directed to return to India on or before 23.06.2026.
He must return to India and join investigation within 48 hours if required by the Investigating Officer during the travel period.
He must inform the Court within 24 hours of his return.
He cannot seek extension of stay abroad.
He must furnish a ₹25 lakh fixed deposit receipt as security.
He must also furnish a ₹25 lakh personal bond with one surety of like amount.
He cannot enter into transactions involving relinquishment or disposal of interests in movable or immovable properties, shares or securities without Court permission.
He cannot apply for citizenship of another country or renounce Indian citizenship during the period without Court permission.
He must file complete travel itinerary, flight details, places of stay and contact details before leaving India.
He must give an undertaking that violation of conditions may lead to forfeiture of FDR and surety bond.
He must not influence anyone connected with the investigation or tamper with evidence.
His counsel must accept summons/notices on his behalf while he is abroad.
He must provide the relevant documents already sought by the investigating agency before travelling abroad.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court temporarily suspended the LOC from 09.06.2026 to 23.06.2026 and allowed the applicant to travel abroad for specified professional conferences.
However, the Court protected the investigation by imposing strict conditions relating to financial security, return to India, cooperation with SFIO, furnishing documents, non-tampering with evidence and immediate availability if summoned.
The Investigating Officer was directed to communicate the order to the concerned authorities, including the FRRO.
Key Takeaway
A Look Out Circular can be temporarily suspended for genuine travel where the applicant has shown past compliance and reduced flight-risk concerns. But where investigation is pending, especially in serious financial matters, courts may impose strict safeguards to ensure return, cooperation and protection of the investigation.
