Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 1 of 9
IA/1/2026
(Gaurav Aggarwal vs. CBI)
In
CC No. CBI/88/2024
RC-E0003 2022
CBI vs. M/s Allied Stripes Ltd. & Ors.
16.01.2026
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of an application filed on behalf of
accused/applicant Gaurav Aggarwal seeking cancellation/deletion
of Look Out Circular (s) issued against him by CBI as well as Bank
of Baroda.
2. In the application, it is stated that the accused/applicant is
law abiding citizen of India and is a permanent resident of India
having family business; that the allegations against the applicant in
the FIR are documentary in nature; FIR does not allege that the
applicant is a habitual offender, nor does it contain any allegation
suggesting that the applicant attempted to abscond, evade
investigation, or disobey lawful directions of the investigating
agency; that the entire case, as borne out from the FIR is triable on
the basis of documents already seized and witnesses already
examined, and does not require custodial interrogation of the
applicant; that the accused/applicant had joined the investigation
with the CBI and duly cooperated with the agency; that the
applicant supplied all documents, explanations and information
sought by the investigating agency and never sought to delay or
obstruct the investigation in any manner whatsoever; that the
investigating agency, after full and complete investigation, has filed
the charge-sheet without arresting the applicant; the present matter
is pending for consideration on the charge-sheet and cognizance is
-- 1 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 2 of 9
yet to be taken; that the applicant is not a flight risk and has deep
roots in the society; that when the applicant was traveling with his
family to Phuket, Thailand on 05.01.2026, he was stopped by
Immigration Authorities at the airport and was informed that a
Look Out Circular (LOC) was pending against him; that it has
recently come to the knowledge of the applicant that two separate
Look Out Circulars have been opened against the applicant, one at
the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and
another at the instance of Bank of Baroda; that neither the CBI nor
Bank of Baroda has ever alleged that the applicant is absconding or
has attempted to evade the process of law; as per the investigation;
that he has not been evading the due process of law; that the
applicant has joined the investigation at multiple occasions and
charge-sheet has been filed against him without arrest; that neither
the CBI nor the Bank has informed the applicant regarding issuance
of LOC. It is further stated that by issuing the said Look Out
Circulars, the CBI has infringed the fundamental rights of the
applicant as mentioned under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of
India. It is further stated that the pendency of the LOC is causing
hindrance in travel and may cause grave and irreparable harm to the
accused/applicant; that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to
the prosecution if the LOC is cancelled, whereas the applicant
continues to suffer grave hardship due to the arbitrary restriction on
his liberty; that the accused/applicant undertakes to comply with all
conditions imposed by this court. Hence, the present application be
allowed.
3. Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused, in support of his
contentions, has filed/relied upon various judgments titled as
Rajesh Kumar Mehta vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) 11707/2022,
-- 2 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 3 of 9
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; Sumer Singh Salkhan vs. Asst.
Director & Ors. 2010 SCC OnLine 2699; Shivani Saxena vs.
Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. W.P. (C) 8084/2020; Maj
General A.S. Gauraya & Anr. vs. S.N. Thakur & Anr (1986) 2 SCC
709; Bindeshwari prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh (1977) 1 SCC 57;
Syed Nusrat Ali v State & Anr. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2595;
Yogender Chnadolia v Vishesh Ravi & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine
5540; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan & Anr.
(1994) 3SCC 440 and K.I. Pavunny v Assistant Collector (HQ)
Central Excise Collectorate Cochin (1997 3 SCC 721’; Maneka
Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248; Deepti Sarup
Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Anr. 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1913’;
Rana Ayyub vs. Union of India & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del
961; ‘Karti P. Chidambaram vs. Bureau of Immigration, W.P. No.
21305/2017 decided on 23.07.2019 by Hon’ble High Court of
Madras’ etc. Ld. counsel for the accused/applicant has also relied
upon various office memorandums (not filed on record) in this
regard.
4. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 i.e. Bank of Baroda, in
support of his contentions, has also filed various office
memorandums and order of Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi in
various Writ Petitions seeking permission to travel abroad.
5. The application is contested by the prosecution and Bank of
Baroda (respondent no. 2). In reply of CBI/prosecution, it is stated
that the accused/applicant is involved in a bank fraud case involved
a loss of Rs. 508.38 crore to the nationalized banks; that the charge-
sheet has been filed but the trial of the said case is still pending; that
on 05.01.2026, the accused/applicant attempted to flee away from
-- 3 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 4 of 9
the country alongwith his family and he was detained by the
immigration authority on the basis of LOC; that the LOC was
opened by the CBI solely to secure the present of the
accused/applicant; that if the LOC was withdrawn then there is
serious apprehension that the accused/applicant might flee away
from the country alongwith his family members and not turned up
thereby the trial of the present case will hamper in his absence.
Hence, the application be dismissed.
6. In reply of Bank of Baroda (respondent no. 2), it is stated that
the present application filed by the accused/applicant is
misconceived, frivolous and nothing but a dilatory tactic adopted
with the sole intention to evade the due process of law and
impending trial in the present case; that the said LOC issued by the
Bank of Baroda is prior to the present criminal proceedings; that the
accused/applicant is involved in a serious economic offence
pertaining to large scale diversion and non-repayment of public
funds, resulting in a colossal financial exposure exceeding Rs. 100
crores to the respondent no. 2; that the accused/applicant is at flight
risk and can avoid the trial of the present case; that the
accused/applicant is aware that the charge-sheet has already been
filed and cognizance is yet to be taken on the same, but he still did
not bother to take permission from this court or intimate the IO of
the investigating agency of CBI of his travel. It is further stated that
the present application is not legally maintainable and also not
having any legal force in the eyes of law and thus, the same is liable
to be rejected, in the interest of justice.
7. I have considered the submissions of Ld. counsel for the
accused/applicant and Ld. PP for the CBI and have gone through
-- 4 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 5 of 9
the records and judgments.
8. The present FIR came to be registered on 30.03.2022 in EO-I
Branch of CBI, New Delhi u/s 120-B r/w 406, 411, 421, 468, 471
IPC and Sec 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and substantive
offences thereof. On the basis of a written complaint dated
05.03.2022 of Sh. M. Paramasivam, Chief General Manger, Canara
Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi. That it has been alleged in the
complaint that M/s Allied Stripes Ltd (M/s ASL was engaged in
manufacturing of Cold Rolled Steel Stripes and Hot Rolled Steel
Coils. M/s Allied Stripes Ltd. through its Directors namely Sh.
Mohinder Agrawal, Sh. Gaurav Agrawal and Smt. Sunita Agarwal
availed fund based and non-fund based limits from consortium of
five banks led by Canara Bank and other member banks viz. Punjab
National Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce (now PNB), Dena
Bank (now Bank of Baroda) and UCO Bank (which has not given
consent for CBI Investigation), sanctioned against hypothecation of
stocks and book debts, mortgage of properties and personal
guarantee of the Directors/accused persons, charge on immovable
properties and pledge of shares of group companies which have
also offered corporate guarantee to secure the credit facilities. Later,
the account of the company was declared as fraud by the
consortium banks to the tune of Rs. 1392.86 Crores (outstanding
liability including contractual ins and Rs. 697.36 Crores principal
liability). The company has without any written arrangement made
the advances to the vendors and also written off bad debt to the tune
of Rs. 31.55 crores in March 2015 and had also made an illicit
transfer of Rs. 7.5 crore to M/s Highco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. It is
further alleged that M/s Allied Stripes Ltd. defaulted in payment of
interest & installments, diverted the funds through fake debtors,
-- 5 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 6 of 9
misappropriated the funds, illegally written off bad debts and
malafidely transferred assets charged to the bank, thereby causing
loss of Rs. 697.36 Crores to the banks. That after completion of
investigation, CBI has filed a charge-sheet against M/s Allied Strips
and others including the accused/applicant Gaurav Aggarwal and
same is pending for cognizance.
9. In the case of ‘
Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Asstt. Director & Ors,
W.P (Crl.) No. 1315/2008 dated 11.08.2010’ decided by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble High Court while answering the
questions raised in the reference passed following remarks: -
“A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency on
cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the
accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the
trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and
there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to
evade trial/arrest.
B. The investigating Officer shall make a written request for
LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of
Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The
competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC
by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join
investigation by appearing before I.O or should surrender
before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC
was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the
officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was
wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the
authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial
court where the case is pending or having jurisdiction over
concerned police station on an application by the person
concerned.
D. The LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender
to the investigating agency or court of law. The subordinate
courts jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is
commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs
or affirming NBWs.”
10. As per the law laid down in
‘Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Asstt.
Director & Ors. (supra)’, it was held that the person against whom
LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before the IO or
-- 6 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 7 of 9
surrender the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC
was wrongly issued against him and that the LOC can be rescinded
by the trial court where case is pending on an application of the
person concerned. The LOC is a coercive measure to make a person
surrender to the investigating agency or court of law. The purpose
of the LOC is mainly to ensure the presence of the concerned
person before the Investigation Agency or the court. It is the trial
court which has jurisdiction in affirming or canceling the LOC in
commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or
affirming NBWs.
11. It is clear that LOC can be issued by the competent authority
on the application moved by the investigating agency in cognizable
offences, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not
appearing in trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures
and there are apprehensions that the accused may evade trial or
arrest.
12. In ‘
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248’, it
was held that no fundamental right including right to travel abroad
can be impinged by the state action without following due process
of law as the right to travel abroad is a fundamental facet of
personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of Constitution of
India.
13. Apparently, LOC was issued against accused/applicant in
violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
‘Sumer Singh Salkhan vs. Assistant Director & Ors.’ (2010) ILR 6,
Delhi 706 and other judgments.
-- 7 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 8 of 9
14. There is nothing on record or in the reply filed by the
CBI/prosecution which would suggest that accused/applicant had
not joined the investigation or had not cooperated or had tried to
flee from India. The accused/applicant had joined the investigation;
the charge-sheet has already been filed against him and is pending
at the stage of consideration on the charge-sheet for cognizance; the
accused/applicant was never arrested by the agency during the
investigation. The apprehension raised by the CBI that he may flee
from the country to evade the trial has no basis and appears to be
mere apprehension without any sufficient grounds. As per the
application, the accused/applicant has been residing with his family
in Gurugram, Haryana having deep roots in the society. In order to
ensure the presence of the accused during the trial, conditions may
be imposed so that a balance is stuck between the apprehension of
the CBI/Prosecution
vis-a-vis right of accused/applicant to travel
abroad.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, this court is of the view that
issuance of LOC by CBI is not justified against the
accused/applicant. Therefore, the LOC issued against the
accused/applicant Gaurav Aggarwal by CBI is hereby cancelled
subject to the condition that the accused/applicant shall not leave
the country without prior permission of this court and without
furnishing complete details/itinerary and his contact details for
which he would be at liberty to move separate application.
16. As regard to the LOC opened by the Bank, it was very much
prior to the registration of the present RC by the CBI and initiation
of criminal proceedings against the accused/applicant. The said
-- 8 of 9 --
GAURAV AGGARWAL vs. CBI Page No. 9 of 9
LOC has been opened by the Bank even two years back in the year
2020 before registration of the present case. This court has no
jurisdiction to cancel the LOC opened by the Bank and the
applicant has to move before appropriate forum for the same.
17. Accordingly, instant application stands disposed of with
directions to CBI to cancel the LOC opened by them against the
accused/applicant. The prayer of accused/applicant regarding
cancellation of LOC opened by Bank is hereby dismissed.
18. Copy of this order be sent to HIO/SP concerned for his
information and necessary action.
19. Copy of this order be given dasti, as prayed for.
(Mayank Goel)
ACJM-02-cum-ACJ
RADC/New Delhi/16.01.2026
-- 9 of 9 --