Latest news with #LookOutCircular
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Tarn Taran: Ransom calls land two in police net in 3 cases
The Punjab Police have solved three ransom call cases in Tarn Taran and arrested two accused, said senior superintendent of police (SSP) Deepak Pareek on Sunday. The Punjab Police have solved three ransom call cases in Tarn Taran and arrested two accused, said senior superintendent of police (SSP) Deepak Pareek on Sunday. (HT Photo) In the first case, Nishan Singh and Gursewak Singh alias Saba were arrested. The complainant, a resident of Jagatpura and a farmer, had given 4.25 acres of land on lease to his uncle Nishan Singh for the past 12 years. Recently, he decided to take the land back and started cultivating it himself. This led to a dispute. The complainant reportedly received WhatsApp calls with threats to his life and demands for extortion. The caller claimed to be a gangster. Investigations revealed that the caller was Gursewak Singh alias Saba, who was in contact with Nishan Singh. The threats were made by Gursewak under Nishan's directions. They demanded extortion, said Pareek. In another case, Mandeep Singh, currently in Dubai and related to someone from the complainant's village. He, along with associates, was trying to extort money. Legal proceedings including Look Out Circular (LOC) have been initiated. In the third case, the complainant, a resident of Bhikhiwind, received WhatsApp calls where an unknown person claiming to be a gangster threatened to kill his family if ₹ 20 lakh was not paid. He said, 'Investigations revealed the accused as Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi alias Panchi, residing in Dubai for the past 8 years and last visited Punjab about 2.5 years ago. He used the gangster name to scare and extort money. LOC has been issued to arrest the accused'. 'All three cases are under investigation. Police are working on uncovering gang connections, financial trails, and identifying additional associates. More arrests are expected', he added.
India Gazette
4 days ago
- India Gazette
London Murder Case: Accused moves Delhi High Court against order declaring him proclaimed offender
New Delhi [India], June 19 (ANI): A man accused of murdering his wife in London last year has approached the Delhi High Court against a Delhi Court order declaring him a proclaimed offender (PO). However, the High Court denied any immediate relief and listed the matter in July. Justice Pratibha M Singh refused to stay the order and said, ' This matter will require consideration. This is not a case for the vacation bench.' 'Deceased stated to have died under mysterious circumstances in the UK. This would require considerations. If the petitioner is arrested, his legal remedies can be availed,' Justice Singh said. The matter has been listed on July 15 for hearing before the roster bench. Advocate Varun Deswal argued for the accused and submitted that the Order declaring him PO was passed without following the due procedure. No notice under 41A (Appearance before the Police) was ever issued. The accused was declared a PO on May 1. The Public Prosecutor (PP) opposed the submissions and submitted a report from the UK Interpol. He said the report is very confidential and gives details on what happened. After perusing the report, Justice Singh asked the counsel for the accused, 'What is the urgency? This is a PO case.' Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused (PO) can be arrested at any time, and his properties are at risk of being attached. PP opposed the submissions and said to surrender, go to jail, and apply for bail. The victim was allegedly murdered by her husband in the UK. Thereafter, he fled the UK and is absconding. Last, he was spotted in Gurugram. It is stated that one of the parents is on bail, one in custody. Delhi Police had arrested the parents on March 14. This is a case of alleged cruelty and dowry death. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Palam Village on 03.12.2024 under Section 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 85, 316, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2025. Later on section related to Dowry death was added by the Delhi Police. Earlier, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued against the husband. (ANI)
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Indian Express
Woman killed in UK: Husband denied interim relief, Delhi HC refuses to stay order naming him proclaimed offender
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to stay an order where the husband of a 24-year-old Delhi woman murdered in East London nine months ago was named as a proclaimed offender. The husband, who is the main accused in the case, has not been nabbed by the Delhi Police yet. 'She (wife) is stated to have died under mysterious circumstances in the UK. This would require consideration…it is a serious matter. If the petitioner (husband) is arrested, his legal remedies can be availed. He can apply for regular bail,' Justice Prathiba M Singh said. 'No notice under Section 41A (notice of appearance before police officer) was served to me…I can be arrested at any time. My properties are at a risk of being attached,' advocate Varun Deswal, who represented the husband, said before the court. 'What is the urgency? You have been declared a proclaimed offender…this matter will require consideration. This is not a case for the vacation bench,' Justice Singh said. 'We have a report from the UK…it is very confidential. It gives details on what happened,' the public prosecutor who represented the state argued. 'Surrender, go to jail and then apply for bail,' he added. The matter will now be heard on July 15. The man accused of murdering his wife was purportedly last spotted withdrawing money from a bank in Gurgaon on March 4. He has been on the run since November last year, when his wife's body was found in the boot of his car in East London. A postmortem report had listed strangulation as the preliminary cause of death. The Delhi Police had earlier issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) against him, after he was suspected to have arrived in the national capital. They had subsequently declared him a proclaimed offender on May 1. According to the latest status report filed by the station house officer of the Palam Village police station in the Delhi High Court, details of the banks from where the accused withdrew money were collected on April 4. This report was submitted before the Delhi High Court had asked the police to file a status report outlining the steps they have taken to arrest the accused, who has been on the run for months. His mobile was recovered on March 22 from an autorickshaw driver as per the report. The parents of the husband were arrested on March 14; the mother is currently out on bail while the father is still behind bars. The police have also announced a Rs 50,000 reward for any information leading to the husband's arrest. Three mobile phones, including that of a relative of the husband (a former Delhi Police official who has been suspended), have also been sent for forensic examination. In December last year, an FIR was lodged in this case based on a complaint filed by the victim's parents. A case under sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged on December 3, 2024, by the Delhi Police. Later, Section 304B IPC (dowry death) was added.
Mint
06-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Vijay Mallya's BIG claim on CBI lookout circular against him: ‘I went in and out multiple times and never had a problem'
Vijay Mallya, the embattled Indian businessman, has said he knew nothing of any Lookout Circular (LoC) against him or any changes in it. Mallya, the former Kingfisher Airlines chief facing multiple fraud charges in India, opened up in a four-hour-long conversation with podcaster Raj Shamani. In the podcast, released on Thursday, Mallya was asked about the 2015 Lookout Circular (LoC) by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him and the subsequent changes in it. 'I know nothing of any Look Out Circular. I went in and out multiple times and had never a problem,' Mallya told Shamani. The CBI had issued a fresh LOC against Mallya in the last week of November, 2015 asking airport authorities across the country to "inform" it about Mallya's movements. In doing so, the central agency replaced its previous circular which had sought detention of the businessman if he attempted to leave the country. Mallya left the country in March 2016 for the United Kingdom where he is legally contesting the extradition ordered by the British government. Background: Change in a 2015 LoC In September 2018, the CBI said that the change in a 2015 LoC against Mallya from 'detain' to merely informing about his movements was an 'error' in judgement because he was cooperating in the probe and there was no warrant against him. CBI sources had said in 2018 that when the first LoC was issued on October 12, 2015, Mallya was already abroad. The central agency sources had said that there was no need to arrest or detain him as he was a sitting MP and there was no warrant against him. Mallya was a member of Rajya Sabha till May 2016. Reports quoting sources had said the central agency only wanted information on his movements. Besides, the probe was in an initial stage and the CBI was collecting documents from the IDBI in the ₹ 900 crore loan default case, they said. The CBI issued a fresh LoC against Mallya in the last week of November, 2015 asking airport authorities across the country to 'inform' it about Mallya's movements, thus replacing its previous circular which had sought detention of the businessman if he attempted to leave the country, they said. A Look Out Circular (LOC) is a notice issued by immigration authorities at airports, seaports, and land borders to alert them about individuals whose travel might be restricted or who might be detained. It's essentially a warning system to prevent individuals from entering or leaving a country. LOCs are often issued to prevent people from absconding from criminal investigations or evading arrest. On 9 April, Mallya lost an appeal against a London high court bankruptcy order in a case pertaining to more than ₹ 11,101 crore debt to lenders, including the State Bank of India (SBI). I know nothing of any Look Out Circular. I went in and out multiple times and had never a problem. Mallya has been living in Britain since fleeing India in 2016. He has been embroiled in a long legal battle with lenders, as well as the Indian authorities, following the 2012 collapse of his defunct Kingfisher Airlines.
India Today
03-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
How govt revoked OCI card of US journalist Raphael Satter for ‘anti-India bias'
In a case that pits the sovereignty of the Indian state against global norms of press freedom, the Union government has firmly defended its decision to revoke the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card of US-based journalist Raphael an affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court last week, the ministry of home affairs (MHA) claimed the move was based on intelligence inputs that flagged Satter for allegedly 'maliciously creating adverse and biased opinions against Indian institutions' in the global arena through his reporting. A discreet Look Out Circular (LOC) had also been issued against him, the government government claimed that before initiating cancellation of OCI proceedings, the MHA had consulted security agencies and the ministry of external affairs (MEA), and also examined the activities of Satter in the light of reports received from security affidavit, filed by I.G. Muthuraja, director in the Foreigners Division of the MHA on May 24, further asserted India's sovereign right to deny entry to any foreign national deemed undesirable, regardless of visa status. 'Entry into a country's territory is not a matter of right,' the government stated, reinforcing its position that holding an OCI card does not guarantee unrestricted access. The affidavit stated it was brought to the notice of the MHA through security agencies that Satter had attended the Nullcon Conference in Goa on September 10, 2022. The focus of the conference was to showcase the next generation of offensive and defensive security technology. Without necessary permission, he attended the conference and conducted journalistic activities, thus violating the provision of Para (1) (1) of the MHA's notification S.O. 1050 (E) dated March 4, is germane to mention here that OCI cardholders or other foreigners visiting India are supposed to adhere to the laws of the country, i.e. the activities which are prohibited for them under the category of VISA or OCI guidelines,' the government affidavit stated, adding that an OCI cardholder is a foreigner and that the OCI card is a life-long visa issued to such a foreigner. Every country has a sovereign right to refuse entry into its territory to any individual whom it may consider undesirable, and informing about the same inasmuch as entry into any country's territory is not a matter of right, even if the person holds a valid was also informed that Indian citizens are guaranteed the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and Fundamental Right to Free Movement under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. However, foreigners or citizens of other countries are not entitled to such rights. Since OCI cardholders are foreigners and citizens of another country, they cannot claim Right to Free Speech/Movement and protest under Article 19 of the was pointed out that the legal position on this aspect is not uniform in all countries, but so far, the law which operates in India is concerned, the executive government has an unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far as the right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case and it is not claimed that if the authority concerned had served a notice before passing the impugned order, the petitioners could have produced some relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition of citizenship, which they failed to do in the absence of a was claimed that before initiating cancellation of OCI proceedings, the MHA had consulted security agencies and MEA and also examined the activities of Satter in view of reports received from security agencies, MEA and provisions under Sections 7D (da) and 7D (e) of The Citizenship Act, 1955, wherein the OCI card of the petitioner was found liable to be cancelled. Therefore, on June 12, 2023, the MHA served a 'notice' to the petitioner through the Indian High Commission in Washington DC to show cause as to why his OCI Card may not be is submitted that the reports received from security agencies are 'Secret' in nature, therefore, it cannot be disclosed to the (7D) The Central Government may, by order, cancel the registration granted under sub-section (1) of section 7A, if it is satisfied that:(da) The Overseas Citizen of India cardholder has violated any of the provisions of this Act or provisions of any other law for time being in force as may be specified by the central government in the notification published.(e) it is necessary so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general government maintained that though Satter made repeated representations claiming that he did not carry any journalistic activities, he has not submitted anything which proves that he has not done any journalistic activities and was also unable to submit his whereabouts and activities during his visit to India.'It has been reported by security agencies that Raphael Satter has been noted for acts of maliciously creating adverse and biased opinion against Indian institutions in the international arena through his journalistic activities, and a discreet LOC was opened against him,' the government informed the Delhi High high court was informed that in the personal hearing, Satter, through his representatives, claimed that after obtaining his OCI Card, he had visited India only once and had not engaged in any journalistic activities, such as interviews, news events, or taken any photos, nor published any articles during his visit to India. In addition, Satter has cited eight court judgments to support his argument that detailed reasons for the cancellation of an OCI Card need to be furnished when exercising powers under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Further, he stated that no proof has been submitted (i) on the allegation of conducting journalistic activities without special permission (ii) on the allegation of maliciously creating adverse and biased opinion against Indian institutions in the international government has made it clear that the OCI card is a lifelong visa granted to a foreign national of Indian origin or their relatives. The grant of visa is plenary sovereign function of the central government. 'The foreign national cannot claim services as a matter of right as per their convenience. Visa service is meant only for those foreign nationals who intent to arrive/ stay/ depart in/ from India legally and follow Indian laws and rules.'advertisementSubscribe to India Today Magazine
