JUDGMENT : Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Mr. Halwasia, waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.3–State. 3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the Look Out Circular (‘LOC’), issued against him, at the behest of the respondent No.1-Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not an accused in the case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (E.O.W), Mumbai and in the charge-sheet filed by the E.O.W, as against the petitioner’s father. He submits that though the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) had filed prosecution complaints in 2019 in the matter of Pancard Clubs Limited, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused by the SEBI, in any of the said complaints. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cases are against Pancard Clubs Limited and its Directors and that the petitioner at no point of time was either a shareholder or a director of Pancards Club Limited. He submits that the petitioner has cooperated in the SFIO investigation and has reported to the office of the SFIO, as and when summoned i.e. on 19th January 2021; 11th January 2022; 2nd March 2022 and 15th September 2022. He submits that even the petitioner had sent emails/communications to the SFIO, furnishing necessary details/information as sought for, on 3 occasions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 3 earlier occasions the petitioner was permitted to travel overseas and as such the petitioner has travelled overseas and has complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. He further submits that the petitioner’s mother, a senior citizen, his wife and one school going child, are residing with him. He submits that the SFIO after investigation has filed a complaint in February 2024, however, cogzinance of the said complaint has not been taken by the concerned Court, till date. Since, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is required to travel overseas regularly for business purpose, the LOC issued against the petitioner, be quashed. 5. Mr. Halwasia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, vehemently opposes the petition. Since, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is required to travel overseas regularly for business purpose, the LOC issued against the petitioner, be quashed. 5. Mr. Halwasia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the petitioner can seek permission of this Court, whenever he intends to travel instead of quashing the LOC, more particularly since cognizance of the SFIO’s complaint is still to be taken. He submits that an total amount of Rs.4,72,00,000/- has been transferred to the petitioner's account from Pancard Clubs Limited and that the petitioner has purchased lands from these monies. Mr. Halwasia, relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Chaitya Shah v/s Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3967, and Ramesh Himatlal Shah v/s Union of India and Others, [Cr. Writ Petition No.3009 of 2021, decided on 5th July 2022], in support of his submission that LOC ought not to be quashed. 6. Perused the papers. 7. The petitioner is the son of an accused Late Sudhir Moravekar. It is not in dispute, that the E.O.W has registered an FIR as against the petitioner's father and others (not the petitioner) and that after investigation, E.O.W has filed charge-sheet in the said case, as against the petitioner’s father and other accused on 30th October 2021. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the said case registered by the E.O.W. It also appears that the SEBI has filed several prosecution complaints in the matter of Pancard Clubs Limited in 2019. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused by SEBI in any of the said complaints. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a director of the said Pancard Clubs Limited. The respondent No.1 is the SFIO, who was also investigating the transactions of Pancard Clubs Limited. In the said case, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused alongwith others. It is a matter of record and which fact is not disputed, is that the petitioner was summoned by the SFIO office on 4 occasions i.e. on 19th January 2021; 11th January 2022; 2nd March 2022 and 15th September 2022 and on all the said dates the petitioner reported to the SFIO's office. It is a matter of record and which fact is not disputed, is that the petitioner was summoned by the SFIO office on 4 occasions i.e. on 19th January 2021; 11th January 2022; 2nd March 2022 and 15th September 2022 and on all the said dates the petitioner reported to the SFIO's office. It also appears that the petitioner had addressed emails/communications to the SFIO and had provided certain details/information as sought for, by the office of the SFIO. The said emails relied upon by the petitioner are dated 8th October 2021, 6th April 2022 and 18th July 2022. It is not the case of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation. Infact this Court on 3 occassions permitted the petitioner to travel overseas vide orders dated 9th June 2023, 11th September 2023 an 16th January 2024 respectively, on certain terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has abided by the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. It appears that the petitioner has businesses overseas, as a result of which, he is required to regularly travel overseas. It also appears that the petitioner is involved in business of short-term rental service apartments in Thailand and Dubai, requiring him to travel often. It also appears that the petitioner’s mother, a senior citizen, his wife and one school going child are dependent on him and that he is a resident of Mumbai and as such has roots in the society. It is also not in dispute that the SFIO has filed a prosecution complaint in February 2024 and till date, the trial Court has not taken cognizance of the said complaint. 8. The submission of the respondent No.1 is that on cognizance being taken, the LOC will be withdrawn, does not stand to reason, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. LOC cannot be used as a weapon against an accused, indefinitely to terrorise him/her, without any basis. When LOC is sought to be issued or continued, the agency must bear in mind the right of an accused to travel freely, guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot and must not be routinely issued. This Court in Showik Indrajit Chakraborty vs. The Addl. When LOC is sought to be issued or continued, the agency must bear in mind the right of an accused to travel freely, guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot and must not be routinely issued. This Court in Showik Indrajit Chakraborty vs. The Addl. Superintendent of Police and Another, [Writ Petition No.3135 of 2023 and other connected petitions, decided on 22.02.2024], have observed in para 23 as under; “23. LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only when there is/are reason/(s) to issue the same i.e. when a person deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court or for any other reason. An LOC is a coercive measure to make the person surrender and as such interferes with the person’s right of personal liberty and free movement and curtails the fundamental right of an individual to travel, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.” 9. In order to assail the fear of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, that the petitioner would not be available, when the Court takes cognizance of the prosecution case, we directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit of the petitioner undertaking to co-operate with the trial Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered an affidavit of the petitioner dated 12th July 2024. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has undertaken to remain present as and when summoned by the learned Special Court or the offices of the respondent Agency and has voluntarily ensured full compliance with the respondent Agency i.e. SFIO. Thus, the petitioner has undertaken to abide by the undertaking given by him in the affidavit i.e. to remain present before the trial Court, as and when summoned and even before the respondent Agency i.e. SFIO. Merely stating that the petitioner is a flight risk is not sufficient, more particularly, when the facts as stated aforesaid, reveal to the contrary. The petitioner has not only cooperated with agency, but has also abided by the terms and conditions stipulated in the orders passed by this Court, whilst permitting him to travel overseas on 4 occasions. Merely stating that the petitioner is a flight risk is not sufficient, more particularly, when the facts as stated aforesaid, reveal to the contrary. The petitioner has not only cooperated with agency, but has also abided by the terms and conditions stipulated in the orders passed by this Court, whilst permitting him to travel overseas on 4 occasions. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is clearly distinguishable and will not apply to the facts of the present case, for the reasons stated hereinabove. The petitioner has roots in the society and has also tendered an undertaking as stated aforesaid. In this light of the matter, the apprehension of the respondent No.1-SFIO, does not appear to be valid and bonafide. 10. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed on the following terms and conditions:- ORDER (i) The impugned LOC issued as against the petitioner, at the behest of the respondent No.1-SFIO, is quashed and set aside; (ii) The petitioner to abide by his undertaking given to this Court dated 12th July 2024; (iii) The respondent No.1-SFIO shall inform the Immigration Authorities of the order passed today, at the earliest and in any event within 48 hours of this order being uploaded; (iv) Needless to state, that it is always open for the respondent No.1-SFIO to issue a fresh LOC, if the occasion so arises in future. 11. The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.