On Thursday, the Bombay High Court postponed its decision on the petition filed by actor Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their father, who sought to revoke the Look-Out Circulars (LOC) issued against them. These LOCs were issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during its investigation into the case involving actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
A standing Look-Out Circular (LOC) prohibits individuals from traveling abroad without prior court authorization. Rhea was unable to honor her international work obligations due to the LOC, prompting the request to nullify it. The panel, consisting of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, contested the CBI's position that the mere existence of an FIR warranted the issuance of an LOC. They argued that the LOC failed to indicate any suspicion of the recipients intending to flee.
Concerns arose regarding jurisdiction, given that the FIR was originally lodged in Patna before being transferred to the CBI in Delhi. Advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Prasanna Bhangale, representing Chakraborty, contended that Mumbai was the suitable jurisdiction, citing Chakraborty's residency there and the CBI's investigative activities in the city.
Advocate Ayaz Khan, representing Showik and his father, argued for Mumbai's jurisdiction in the trial and contended that an LOC should only be issued if the accused are actively evading arrest or court appearances. However, CBI representative Advocate Shreeram Shirsat cited a previous court refusal regarding Rhea's case transfer request to Mumbai.
The bench, noting the pending case since 2020 without a chargesheet, emphasized the need for finality and questioned the necessity of the LOC, suggesting discretion and expressing concerns about its impact on witnesses. They stressed that the case doesn't require extensive time for understanding transactions.
Shirsat acknowledged the Chakrabortys' cooperation and appearances upon summons in the case but couldn't assure an imminent filing of the chargesheet. He emphasized that their attendance doesn't imply an inactive investigation. Regarding the LOC, he stressed its purpose as apprehension-based, stating that intentions remain uncertain until a person flees. Nonetheless, the bench criticized the delay, remarking that three and a half years should have sufficed for the chargesheet's completion.
In December of last year, the High Court had temporarily suspended the LOC against the actress, granting her permission to travel to Dubai for a week related to her role as a brand ambassador for a pet food company. Similarly, earlier last year, the HC had also suspended the LOC against her to attend an award function, although she ultimately couldn't travel on that occasion.