The issuance of LOC is a coercive measure aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency and/or a court of law, however, this power has to be used sparingly only in exceptional cases and LOC is not to be issued in a routine manner as it may affect the liberty of an accused. While hearing the plea of a man seeking the suspension of a Look Out Circular issued against him and permission to travel to the US, the Delhi High Court observed that the issuance of a LOC is a “coercive measure” and the power of its issuance has to be used “sparingly”. A single judge bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in its February 9 order observed, “The issuance of LOC is a coercive measure aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency and/or a court of law, however, this power has to be used sparingly only in exceptional cases and LOC is not to be issued in a routine manner as it may affect the liberty of an accused. Mere suspicion of the accused not returning to India after his travels when the accused has travelled abroad on numerous occasions and has never misused the liberty granted to travel abroad on earlier occasions, in my view, cannot be accepted as the basis for rejecting the present application”. The HC also remarked the right to travel is a valuable fundamental right and should be curtailed only in exceptional circumstances. The court then suspended the LOC issued against the petitioner Sandip Singh Deswal between February 10-April 20, consequently granting him permission to travel to the US on February 11 and return to India on April 17, subject to certain conditions. Deswal has been booked by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police in a case pertaining to cheating and criminal conspiracy among other offences. Deswal had argued he should be allowed to travel to the US as he had not met his son, who lives there, for almost four years. He said he had travelled abroad on 10 occasions during the pendency of the complaint against him and also, after the registration of the FIR, and on all occasions, he came back and joined as well as cooperated in the investigation as per directions of the investigating officer. He contended there is no possibility of him not returning to India after his travels to the US. Deswal also submitted he was on “no occasion asked to join investigation by way of issuance of warrants and even after filing of the chargesheet, the petitioner has neither been apprehended in the present case till date nor has been summoned” by the trial court. The prosecution argued they had a strong apprehension that Deswal would misuse the liberty and may not come back to face the proceedings in relation to the chargesheet which has been already filed. The HC, however, noted that the main chargesheet has been filed against Deswal without apprehending him and the trial court had summoned only two accused persons while the remaining three accused persons including Deswal had not been summoned to date. “Therefore, in my opinion, the case at hand does not fall within the purview of an exceptional circumstance,” the HC said.