The Delhi High Court has terminated the look out circular (LOC) against Thilakasri Krupanand and Shantunu Muluk, who were associated with the 2021 farmers’ protest, citing full cooperation in the ongoing investigation and no flight risk.
Justice Sanjeev Narula ruled on January 31 that the continuation of the LOC was “arbitrary and excessive,” noting that there was no judicial directive requiring the men to remain within the country. The court emphasized that maintaining the LOC served no reasonable purpose other than to impose an “undue and indefinite restraint” on their fundamental right to travel.
The FIR from January 26, 2021, which included charges under various sections such as sedition and criminal conspiracy, did not specifically implicate Krupanand and Muluk, and the probe had not conclusively linked them to any criminal activities. The high court highlighted that the investigation had been inconclusive even after four years, with no chargesheet filed against the duo.
During the proceedings, it was noted that the petitioners had been allowed to travel abroad multiple times and had consistently returned to India, demonstrating their compliance with the legal process and dispelling any concerns about them being a flight risk. “This conduct strongly negates the apprehension of flight risk, which is the primary rationale for issuing an LOC,” Justice Narula stated in his verdict.
The court’s decision also underlined that no evidence was presented to suggest that Krupanand and Muluk had tried to evade legal proceedings or were non-cooperative during the investigation. The verdict further noted that permissions for their travel were approved by the respondents themselves, which reinforced the conclusion that the authorities did not view them as actual flight risks.
The Bureau of Immigration, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, has been directed to update their records in accordance with the court’s order.
The Delhi government’s counsel had argued against the quashing of the LOC, expressing apprehensions that the ongoing probe might be evaded by the individuals if they were allowed to abscond. However, the court found these concerns to be unsubstantiated given the facts of the case.
