Judgment : 1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.28411/2013 seeks a direction to the first respondent to lift the Lookout Circular issued against him in connection with Cr.No.13/2013 on the file of the second respondent. M.P.No.2 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.No.11845/2013 is filled by the defacto complainant/third respondent in Cri.O.P.No.28411/2013 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner/accused by this Court under orders in Crl .O.P .No.11845/2013 dated 16.05.2013. 2. Learned counsel for third respondent/defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.28411/2013 inform that even while abroad, the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C in respect of the case wherein Lookout Circular dated 14.09.2013 had been issued by the first respondent. The learned counsel submits that after obtaining orders of anticipatory bail, the petitioner landed at Meenambakkam Airport on 31.05.2013. Subsequently, he had been detained by the immigration authorities on 14.09.2013 on the strength of L.O.C.No.2013402666 dated 7.03.2013 issued by the first respondent/Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District had even while confirming the position that the petitioner had obtained relief of anticipatory bail under orders in Crl.O.P.No.11845/2013 dated 16.05.2013 and further had obtained order of relaxation of such conditions, gone on to inform that the petitioner was trying to escape to Seychelles, so as to avoid the case. He, therefore, required the detaining authority not to afford departure clearance to the petitioner to any other country till investigation in the case is completed. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had defrauded several persons of huge sums, promising them employment at Seychelles and the third respondent had been duped of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Learned counsel further submits that the first respondent was within his powers in requiring the immigration authorities to deny departure clearance to the petitioner, as otherwise, there was every possibility of him fleeing from justice. Learned counsel submits that the order of this Court granting relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner came to be passed in circumstances where proper and important particulars had not been informed. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2, who would justify the action of the first respondent against the petitioner and place reliance on the counter filed on behalf of respondents. This Court also heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 4. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2, who would justify the action of the first respondent against the petitioner and place reliance on the counter filed on behalf of respondents. This Court also heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 4. From a bare reading of the order of this Court granting relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, this Court is unable to see that this Court had not relevant particulars before it. Once this Court has granted the relief of anticipatory bail, conditions whereof have been complied by the petitioner and thereafter this Court under orders dated 08.07.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.No.11845/2013, thought it fit to relax the conditions imposed, the act of the first respondent, despite knowledge thereof is out of bounds in requiring the immigration authorities not to permit departure of the petitioner. The Lookout Circular issued against the petitioner by the first respondent is in respect of the case wherein he has obtained relief of anticipatory bail. The very act of granting anticipatory bail by this Court would set at nought the Lookout Circular issued by the first respondent on 07.03.2013. Only in the event of the petitioner not having complied with the conditions of bail, the respondents could have moved against him. Such is not the case herein. 5. Therefore, in the circumstances, M.P.No.2/2013 in Crl.O.P.No.11845/2013, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.28411/2013, shall stand dismissed and Crl.O.P.No.28411/2013 shall stand allowed. The Lookout Circular No.2013402666 dated 07.03.2013 shall be of no effect. 6. As learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brings to notice that the act of the first respondent in requiring the immigration authorities not to clear the petitioner’s departure from India, has forced the petitioner to overstay in India in violation of Visa which expired on 28.11.2013, this Court directs the first respondent, upon application of the petitioner, to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner departing the country. 7. It is made clear that this order will be without prejudice to respondents 1 and 2 taking action as available to them in law.