JUDGMENT : (Surepalli Nanda, J.) Heard Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri K.Prateek Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on record and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 and the same is extracted hereunder:- “Learned Government Pleader for Home takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and submits that there are about 10 cases registered against the petitioner and thus, seeks time to file counter in the matter. List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2025.” PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION:- 3. The case of the appellant in brief is that on 18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl Ashburn, Virginia, USA, a special function for book launch is scheduled on the occasion of 15 th Death Anniversary of appellants’ father one late Sri Kontham Bakka Reddy and therefore, it is necessary for the appellant to travel and stay in the United States of America between 09.05.2025 to 11.06.2025 for the said purpose, but how ever, though the appellant sought an interim direction in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the appellant by suspending the Lookout circular/ lookout notice, if any, issued against the appellant/ petitioner to visit USA for a period of two (02) months, no interim order w as granted in favour of the appellant since this Court vide its order, dated 01.05.2025 based on the representation of the learned Government Pleader that ‘10’ cases are registered against the appellant/ petitioner and duly considering the request of the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents for grant of time for filing counter affidavit directed the matter to be listed after summer vacation for the purpose of filing counter affidavit in the matter and aggrieved by the same, the appellant w as constrained to file the present Writ Appeal. 4. 4. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant how ever disputes the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents that appellant w as involved in ten (10) criminal cases referring to the statement and the averments at page No.6 of the affidavit filed by the appellant/ petitioner in support of the present Writ Appeal and contends that out of ‘10’ cases referred to at page No.6 of the tabular statement, it is only in respect of cases at serial No.1 & 10 that the appellant is arrayed as an accused and in the rest of the other cases No.2 to 9, the appellant is not arrayed as an accused and therefore, the appellant is entitled to travel abroad. 5. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) In view of the order of this Court, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025, the appellant is not in a position to attend the book launch function of appellant’s late father on 18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl Ashburn, Virginia, USA and therefore, serious injustice is caused to the appellant. ii) The present w rit appeal is maintainable as per the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in AI R 2007 MP 276 and in particular placed reliance on the observations at para Nos.27 & 31 of the said judgment in support of appellant’s case. iii) The present Writ Appeal is maintainable as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634 , dated 14.03.2022 and in particular placed reliance on the observations made at para No.19 of the said judgment. iv) The impugned order in the present Writ Appeal, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 had trappings of finality in as much as the said orders adversely affected appellant’s valuable right to life and personal liberty. iv) The impugned order in the present Writ Appeal, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 had trappings of finality in as much as the said orders adversely affected appellant’s valuable right to life and personal liberty. v) The appellant is entitled for the relief as sought for by the appellant in the present appeal and the appellant should be permitted to travel abroad to attend the book launch function of the appellant’s late father, failing which the very purpose of filing W.P.No.13822 of 2025 and the present Writ Appeal No.552 of 2025 would be eventually defeated. vi) Placing reliance on the order of this Court, dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P. 9012 of 2023, and in particular para No.12, it is contended that sub-para “L” of the circular, dated 22.02.2021 has no application to the present case even according to the respondents herein, therefore, the respondents cannot restrict appellant’s/ petitioner’s right to travel abroad. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner contends that the present Writ Appeal has to be allow ed as prayed for. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents mainly puts-forth the follow ing submissions:- i) The present Writ Appeal is not maintainable and placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 03.03.2025 passed in W.A.No.244 of 2025 and in particular para No.4 for tw in reasons, firstly the present Writ Appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order, secondly, the Writ Court dealt w ith the criminal matter , since the subject issue pertains to a lookout circular w hich is a criminal matter and therefore, the Writ Appeal is not maintainable. ii) The appellant should not be permitted to travel abroad and the appellant is not entitled for any relief at this stage and W.P.No.13822 of 2025 filed by the appellant/ petitioner has to be adjudicated finally. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the present Writ Appeal needs to be dismissed. CONCLUSION:- 7. The Apex Court in judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under : “ The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. CONCLUSION:- 7. The Apex Court in judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under : “ The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 8. The Apex Court way back in 1967, in Judgment reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836 , in “Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law . 9. The Apex Court in “MENAKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER” reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 , and in “SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS” reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of a personal liberty. 10. In the case of E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy v State, reported in 2013 SCC online Mad 4092, it is observed as under: “9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. It is the fundamental right of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One's such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. In the celebrated case in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA [ AIR 1978 SC 597 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of persons to go abroad. The phrase no one shall be deprived of his "life and liberty" except procedure established by law employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental right and human right . MENAKA GANDHI (supra) ushered a new era in the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'. 10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are antisocial elements their movements can be regulated. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'. 10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are antisocial elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arise to apprehend persons, who have ability to fly, and flee away from the country. So, L.O.C. orders are issued. It is an harmonius way out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis. 11. The judgment of the Madhyapradesh High Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in AIR 2007 MP 276 and in particular para Nos.27 & 31 are extracted hereunder:- 27. In the case of W.A. No. 69/2007 Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria v. State of M.P. and Ors., the Division Bench had taken note of the decision rendered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), and expressed the opinion that the refusal of the interim order had caused serious injustice to the appellants and hence, the appeal w as maintainable. 31. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons we proceed to record our conclusions in seriatim: (a) The decision rendered in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain (supra), does not lay down the law correctly and is hereby overruled. (b) Any decision treading on the same path has to be deemed to have been overruled. (c) The decisions rendered in Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria (supra) and Tejpal Singh (supra), enunciate the law correctly. (d) The proviso to Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench. (e) An appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (f) The guidelines given in the cases of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (supra), Deoraj (supra), Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. (supra), Subal Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) are to be kept in view while deciding the maintainability of an appeal. (f) The guidelines given in the cases of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (supra), Deoraj (supra), Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. (supra), Subal Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) are to be kept in view while deciding the maintainability of an appeal. (g) It should be borne in mind that instances given in the aforesaid decisions are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature, because various kinds/categories of orders may be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (h) The facts in each case, the nature and the character of the order are to be scrutinised to appreciate the trappings of the same. 12. The judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634 , dated 14.03.2022 and in particular para No.19 is extracted hereunder:- 19. It has been held in Shah Babulal Khimji that most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and would be ‘judgments’ within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. However, there may be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC but w hich also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality inasmuch as such orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. It has further been held that however, for such an order to be a ‘judgment’, an adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. Various illustrations of interlocutory orders have been given by this Court in para (120), which could be held to be appealable. This Court held that though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other, they cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. This Court held that though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other, they cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. This Court has expressed in para (122) that though it had, by way of sample, laid down various illustrative examples of an order which may amount to a judgment, it would not be possible to give such an exhaustive list as may cover all possible areas. This Court, in the facts of the said case, held that an order of the Single Judge refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an ad- interim injunction w as undoubtedly a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent, both because Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC applies to internal appeals in the High Court and that such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 13. Taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above)reported in i) 2013 vol15 SCC page 570 ii) 2019 vol2 SCConline SC 2048 iii) AIR 1967 SC 1836 iv) Para No.19 of the judgment reported in 2023 (1) SCC 634 and v) para No.27 of the Full Bench of the judgment of the Madhyapradesh High Court, dated 21.03.2017 in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others Vs. State of M.P.and Others, and vi) 2013 SCConline Madras 4092, this Court opines that the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Appeal. 14. This Court opines that the judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents has no application to the facts of the present case since it pertains to a quash petition and the present subject issue is not a criminal matter and the subject issue in fact pertains to appellant’s right to life and personal liberty, and therefore, the present Writ Appeal is maintainable. This Court opines that the appellant cannot be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty affecting appellant’s fundamental rights and human rights. 15. This Court opines that the appellant cannot be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty affecting appellant’s fundamental rights and human rights. 15. This Court opines that the present interlocutory order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025, (referred to and extracted above) is an order of moment and if there is no interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate pow er, there is likely to be an irreparable injury or serious injustice and hence, this Court opines that the present Writ Appeal is maintainable and accordingly, sets-aside the order impugned dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 (referred to and extracted above) in exercise of its pow er under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, in view of the fact that if the appellant is not permitted to travel abroad at this stage to attend the book launch function of the appellant’s late father scheduled on 18.05.2025, it would amount to depriving the appellant of his right to life and personal liberty effecting appellant’s fundamental rights and human rights as well, since the very purpose of the appellant in approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.13822 of 2025 and the present Writ Appeal No.552 of 2025 would be eventually defeated, if the purpose for which the appellant approached this Court is not served in the interest of justice. 16. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record that the appellant herein on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30602 of 2024 and this Court passed interim orders, dated 30.10.2024 permitting the appellant herein to travel abroad for “03” weeks upon suspension of the Lookout circular issued against the appellant for “03” weeks by this Court. 17. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts’ judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below : i) 2013 vol15 SCC page 570 ii) 2019 vol2 SCConline SC 2048 iii) AIR 1967 SC 1836 iv) Para No.19 of the judgment reported in 2023 (1) SCC 634 and v) para No.27 of the Full Bench of the judgment of the Madhyapradesh High Court, dated 21.03.2017 in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others Vs. State of M.P.and Others, and vi) 2013 SCConline Madras 4092. State of M.P.and Others, and vi) 2013 SCConline Madras 4092. c) The order, dated 30.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.30602 of 2024 where under the appellant herein on an earlier occasion travelled abroad. d) In the light of the discussion and conclusion arrived at para Nos.3 to 16 of the present judgment. e) The fact on record that it is not the case of the respondents that departure of the appellant from India w ill be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India. The Writ Appeal is allowed, the order impugned, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 is set-aside, and I.A.No.02 of 2025 and I.A.No.03 of 2025 are ordered as prayed for on the following conditions:- i) The appellant/ petitioner is permitted to travel from Hyderabad to USA betw een 09.05.2025 to 11.06.2025 and shall return back to Hyderabad on 11.06.2025. ii) The appellant shall provide the travel details and place of stay to the respondents herein. iii) The appellant shall provide necessary details regarding appellant’s properties and bank accounts to the respondents herein. iv) The appellant shall file an affidavit in the form of an undertaking that he w ill abide by all the conditions mentioned hereinabove. It is further observed that the Lookout Circular purportedly issued under FIR No.188/2024, Chikkadpallly Police Station, 2138/2024, CCS, Hyderabad, 2317/2024, CCS, Hyderabad, 104/2024, Lokeshwaram Police Station, 477/2024, Nirmal Town Police Station, 478/2024, Nirmal Town Police Station, 104/2024, Mudhole Police Station, 121/2024, Basara Police Station, 631/2025, Gachibowli Police Station, 262/2025, Nirmal Town Police Station shall stand suspended till 11.06.2025 to enable the appellant/petitioner to travel to USA by abiding the above said conditions. Further, as soon as the appellant/ petitioner returns back to India on 11.06.2025, he shall inform the same to the respondents herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.