JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Mr. Collin Gonselves, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S.Tayeng, learned counsel for the petitioner through RVC. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. L. Kardu, learned Special P.P. for the respondent No.4. [2.] The case of the petitioner is that she is a Law student and serving as a Legal Advisor of the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum. She received an invitation for three months academic promotion at Dublin City University scheduled to start on 08.09.2025 up to 28.11.2025. However, on 07.09.2025 at about 03:00 am while she was on her way to board her flight at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi she was stopped by Immigration Authorities on the ground that there was a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her. Despite requests made by her, she was not allowed to board her flight. According to the petitioner, she has never been furnished with a copy of the LOC but however, came to know subsequently that the LOC has been circulated in view of the two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against her amongst other persons on 28.05.2025 and 11.06.2025. The first FIR being Boleng PS Case No.11/2025 and the second FIR being Boleng PS Case No.18/2025. The petitioner applied for Anticipatory Bail in view of the FIRs and vide order dated 17.07.2025 the ad-interim Anticipatory Bail granted to her was made absolute. [3.] The petitioner has now filed instant writ petition praying for quashing the LOC issued against her by the respondent No.3 or any other authority as being violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the Immigration Authorities to permit her to travel abroad to attend the program at Dublin City University without hindrance and restrain the authorities not to issue any further LOC against her. [4.] Dr. Collin Gonselves, learned Senior Counsel submits that there no materials to implicate the petitioner in any matter on the alleged incident mentioned in the FIR which was said to have happened on 25.05.2025. In fact, the petitioner along with the Minister concerned who had lodged the FIR were prevented from going outside the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for their own safety and therefore, there was no question on the petitioner instigating the crowd outside who had turned violent. In fact, the petitioner along with the Minister concerned who had lodged the FIR were prevented from going outside the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for their own safety and therefore, there was no question on the petitioner instigating the crowd outside who had turned violent. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has not even been named in the first FIR. He submits that the petitioner is still interested to go for the three months academic program at Dublin City University and therefore the LOC issued against her should be set aside and she be allowed to travel abroad. He submits that the petitioner has been cooperating with the Investigating Agency throughout and there is no reason as to why she would not do the same even if the LOC is withdrawn or set aside by this Court. He submits that at any rate, LOC can be issued only under certain circumstances including the accused deliberately evading arrest, refusing to co-operate with the Investigating Authorities or the accused is likely to leave the country to evade trial/arrest. He submits that no such conditions are available in the present case and therefore, the issuance of LOC is not justifiable. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was called by the police on 30.08.2025 and she immediately went to the Crime Branch, Itanagar and gave her statement verbally which was recorded by the SIT Inspector for two hours. Thereafter, a letter was delivered to the petitioner’s house on 03.09.2025 asking her to report back to the SIT Branch at Itanagar. The petitioner was however unable to report since she had already booked her flight ticket from Dibrugarh to New Delhi on 04.09.2025 and moreover as it would take approximately eight hours from her residence to reach Itanagar and it was dangerous for her to travel at night. Therefore, it was not possible for her to reach Itanagar on 04.09.2025. By issuance of the LOC, the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being curtailed. He thus submits that the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the following authorities: (i) Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Assistant Director & Ors. (2010) SCC OnLine Del 2699 (ii) Priya Parameswaran Pillai Vs. Union of India & Ors. He thus submits that the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the following authorities: (i) Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Assistant Director & Ors. (2010) SCC OnLine Del 2699 (ii) Priya Parameswaran Pillai Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) SCC OnLine Del 7987 and (iii) Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Ors. (1967) SCC OnLine SC 21 [5.] Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the LOC has been issued by the respondents concerned on the request made by the respondent No.4 and therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not have much to say in the matter. [6.] None appears for the respondent No.1 despite notice. [7.] Mr. L. Kardu, learned Special P.P. for the respondent No.4 submits that LOC had to be issued in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to appear before the SIT at Itanagar when she was summoned vide Notice dated 01.09.2025, asking her to appear on 04.09.2025 at 10:00 AM. The petitioner instead proceeded to Dibrugarh and then to Delhi for onward journey to Dublin without informing the Investigating Authorities. Therefore, the LOC was rightly issued. The allegation against the accused persons in the FIR are serious in nature and that a sitting Minister of the State of Arunachal Pradesh faced a life threatening situation on 25.05.2025. Investigation is therefore going on and if the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad, the investigation will be hampered. [8.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the Case Diary produced by the learned Special P.P. The Case Diary would go to show that investigation is still going on and that the bank account of the petitioner is also under scrutiny as some transfer of fund from abroad has been detected. The investigation was initiated in view of the incident of violence which happened on 27.05.2025 in the DC complex at Boleng. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner has no involvement in the said incident, there is no reason as to why the Investigating Agency should now look for other grounds such as look into the account of the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner has no involvement in the said incident, there is no reason as to why the Investigating Agency should now look for other grounds such as look into the account of the petitioner. In other words, he submits that since they have failed to find any involvement of the petitioner, they are now looking for other excuses to justify the action which is not permissible in law. [9.] Upon due consideration of the case projected by the learned counsel for the parties, it so appears that issuance of LOC was considered necessary, while Investigating Agency on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on the day she was summoned and that she had intended to take a flight to Delhi for onward journey to Dublin. Apart from the said incident, no materials have been placed before this Court to show the non-cooperation of the petitioner in the investigation. Under the circumstance, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities more particularly, the respondent No.4 to review the requirement to have an LOC as of today. Such an exercise be conducted within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to say that if upon such review, it is found that a LOC is not required, the same be withdrawn with information to all those concerned. [10.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. [11.] Registry to return back the Case Diary to Mr. L. Kardu, learned Special. P.P for the respondent No.4.