WP/40804/2025 of Garlapati Kusuma, Vs Union of India, on 12 March 2026

ORDER:

Petitioner claims to be an engineering graduate employed in Canada and has been residing there since

25. Oa .2019 . Herself and Pradeep Chandra Talasila, son of Respondent No.8, initially regislered their marriage on 14.08.2019 at Hyderabad without parental knowledge. Aftcr she moved to Canada on 25.08.2019, her Application for his spousal dependent work permit was rejccted twice. Subsequently, they got engaged on 13.06.2O22 and married as per customs or-r 03.O8.2022 at Hyderabad. Thereafter, he insisted that she should appl-v for Permanent Residency for him

I . 1 . Prior to the marriage, parents of Prz < u.ere unable to secure bank loan due to his u I Respondent No.8 requested Petitioner to apply as. on the strcngth of her Canadian employment. At representations, she submitted her pay slips zL Rs.95,00,O00/- was sanctioned by Induslnd BanI: letter dated I8.O7 .2022 in the names of Petitrc Chandra Talasila, Respondent No.S and T. Pac Respondent No.8 executed a Memorandum of tt Deeds uide Document No.9665 of 2022 d,ated 26.C'.

1.2. It is stated, the entire loan Rs.95,0O,OO0/- u,as utilized at the instance of Res and his family members, including payments to\,3 loan, marriage expenses, gold purchase and arrrr Pradeep Chandra Talasila. On 28.O8.2022, Prac Talasila moved to Canada; petitioner paid loan inr;r January, 2024. Thereafter, it is stated, due to rrLi she flrled divorce proceedings before the comp( l Canada on 21,.05.2023, and the marriage was order dated O2.O1.2025. During the pendency ,r proceedings, Respondent No.8 and his son lodgr< datgd 03.O5.2024, resulting in registration of i :ep Chandra employmen [. co-borrorver ing on such rl a loan of ,lide sanction rer, Pradeep -navathi and oosiL of Title )o)) amount o[ rondent No.8 <ls their gold r-rnts paid to :ep Chandra rlments until rital discord, rrt Court in clissolved by matrimonial a complaint R No.4 12 of

J 2024 rrnder Sections 4O6 and 42O lPC. Criminal Petitions were filed before this Court, and by orders dated 12.06.2O24 and 16.07.2024, the Investigating Ofhcer r,r,as directed to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Notices were issued to her parents, who submitted their explanation. No charge sheet has been filed till date. No notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been issued to Petitioner. 1 .3. It is stated, petitioner came to India on 15.11.2025 for her sister's wedding and was scheduled to return to Canada on 25. 12.2025. After completing security and Immigration formalities arrd stamping of her passport, she was detaincd at about O1:00 hours on 25.12.2025 on the ground of a Look Out Circular and was handed over to Bachupally Police. No reasons or-details of the LOC were furnished to her. I .4. Petitioner states that the complaint lodged by Respondent No.8 is motivated by personal grudge arising out of divorce and is intended to coerce settlement o[ the loan amount- She submits that all co-borrowers, including Respondent No.8, his son and T. Padmavathi, are liable for thc [oan; she had already paid approximately Rs. 1B,O0,0OO / - towards instalments, and no recovery proceedings have been initiated by the bank against her. Respondents I to 7 have no authority to prevent her from travelling abroad in the absetrr:, and communicated [,OC or judicial order. She is Canada and is rcquired to report for work by tht January, 2026, lailing which she risks losing_ her Unless permitted to travel forth\t ith, she u.ill sr I irreparable loss.

2. Respondent No.8 filed counter statilrll petitioner is relatcd to his wife and petitioncl became acquaintcd and were in a relationshi) pctitioner used to take his son's salary for her I zrnd bank statement (Ex.P2) reflects that loar transferred to petitioner's Axis Balk account, sh I utilized the loan amount. She hled Form lOA befr,r Court in divorcc proceedings admitting that li from the loan amount was used for retrieving go t her and her parents. It is stated further thzrt Canada to lead marital lite with petitioner, but r; interest and Iiled a divorce petition- Peti[ioner pairl

07. O4.2O23, as per lhc loan statement of Indus r not till January 2024 as claimed and thereafter, dissolved by order dated 02.O I .2025. of zrny valid ,rmployed in l-rrst week of employment. er grave and hat father of a nd his son since 2O 16; rmily's needs amount was ving that she : the Toronto .2t,63,OOO /- belonging to ris son rvent t: showed no B)MIs only till cl Bank, and narriage was

)

2.1. It is stated, Induslnd Bank declared loan account as NPA and rssued notice dated 2O.l | .2023 and proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, including notice under Section l3(2) dated 02.O1.2024; loan was subsequently, assigned to ARCIL under Section S of the Act and notice dated 11.06.2025 was issued. Further notice under Section l3(4) dated 24.06.2O25 was issued for delivery of possession. This respondent denies that he lured petitioner into obtaining the loan; himself and his wife are hnancially stable and his elder son settled in the USA. Respondent No.8 contends that petitioner was in need of funds at the time of marriage and requested him to stand as surety, as her father's property was aiready mortgaged; loan was represented to be Rs.2O-25 lakhs and petitioner promised to repay it and even as per thc loan statement, petitioner is the borrower and failed to clear the dues.

2.2. It is stated further that due to non-payment of loan and alleged misrepresentations by petitioner, Respondent No.g lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.412 of 2024 and charge sheet was filed arraying petitioner as Accused No. 4 who is absconding. He further stated that after obtaining relief under Section 4 1-A in the above Crime, petitioner's lather

Iodged Crime No. 819 of 2024 dated 22.08.2024 t Police Station under Sections 85,77 read with I false allcgations against him and his family membc 2.3. It is also stated, petitioner did not. ,. the investigation after returning to India and disobedience of the order in CRLP No.7868 of 2O'2 failure to repay the loan, himself and his wife ar,r hardship. Respondent No.8 states that the Bank r release his properry upon clearance of the outstlt substitution with the petitioner's mortgaged p contends that she is responsible for repayment of I

3. An undertaking aff-rdavit is f-rled by pe that she is an Employee residing at Unit 1078, 1 C ( Scarborough, Ontario, MlE 4X2, Canada, ternp: No.4O3, Nithya Dharshasam 2, Jaya Dee r Bachupalle, Nizampeta, Telangana, and underta l. with all conditions and appear before law enforcer and Courts whenever required on suf[icient pnr furnishes contact details Phone No. +l 7059898() t Bachupally Ii) 13NS with (,perate with is liable for . Due to her Lrcing severe , prepared to ,riing loan or 'operty, and rr: loan. ioner stating \4ornelle Ct, ':rrily at Flat k.:r Estates, :s to comply t:nt agencies ' notice and 0 and Email skusumaT gmail.com

Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learne < counsel for petitioner, Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, lear lrl Standing

Counsel representing Respondents I to 3, learned Government Pleader for Home for Respondents 4 to 7 and Smt. Majji Triveni, learned counsel for Respondent No.8.

5. Having considered the pleadings of both the parties, it is evident that there exists a serious matrimonial and financial dispute relating to loan sanctioned on 18.07.2022 for Rs.95,OO,OO0/- by Induslnd Bank and subsequent proceedings including FIR No.412 ot 2024, CRLP No.6199 of 2024, CRLP No.7868 ot 2024, SARFAESI notices dated 20.11.2023,

02. O1.2024, 11.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 and C.C. No. of 2025. These disputes relate to civil liability under loan transaclion and criminal allegations under Sections 406 and 42O lPC.

6. The limited issue in the present Writ Petition is detention of petitioner on 25.12.2025 on the basis of an alleged L,ook Out Circular without furnishing copy, issuing authority, date, validity or reasons. lt is not the case of respondents that petitioner was arrested pursuant to warrant or that she was declared proclaimed olfender by any Court. Though Respondent No.5 asserts charge sheet filed in C.C. No.... of 2C25 showing petitioner as absconding, no material is placed to show that she was served with process and deliberately evaded or that any non-bailable $'arrant rvas issued and pending on 25.12.2025.

7. The powcr to issue and act upon Lool must conform to Olfice Memorandums of Mini Affairs and cannot bc exercised arbitrarily so as t: to travel u,trich forms part of personal liberty unde the Constitution. Petitioner was admittedly perlr lmmigration and her passport was stamped er detained al O1:00 hours on 25.12.2025 without I document. The disputes regarding loan ui j declaration, SARFAESI proceedings, Crime No.41 2 No..... of 2025 and Crimc No.819 of 2024 are adjudicateci in appropriate proceedings. Suc:l.L themselves cannot justify indefinite restraint absence of compliance with due process and willr, details of LOC.

8. Petitroner filcd an affidavit undertaki r with investigation and appear before the .l sufhcient prior notice and lurnishcd complete co- Canada and local address in Bachupalle, Nizamlr There is no material placed to show that she u z notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. and failed to r:, contrary, record shows CRI-P No.7868 of 2024 v'. directing coml>liance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. t-)ut Circular try of Home infringe right Article 2 1 of tlted to olear d thereafter, Lrnishing any i;zation, NPA ot 2024, C.C. 'ratters to be ,lisputes by rn t-ravel in ut furnishing Ito cooporate rrhorities on act details in t, Telangana. ; serwed with mply. On the s, disposcd of I i I I

9. In view of the above, this Court holds that the action of Respondents I Lo 7 in detaining petitioner on 25.12.2025 without furnishing copy of took Out Circular, its issuing authority, date, validity period and reasons is arbitrary and violative ol Art-icles l4 and 2l of the Constitution.

10. Official respondents are therefore, directed to permit petitioner to travel Canada subject to her furnishing to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.412 of 2024 of Bachupally Police Station and in C.C. No..... of 2025 h..er present address in Canada, conlact number and e mail. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court concerned as and when required on issuance of prior notice through electronic mode and shall cooperate u,ith investigation and trial. I 1. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. sD/'AH$'Es?ifi'rDHt"'t+HiH I

SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs' Union of .lndia' New Delhi' iii: El;ffi#.i, li" a-ui""ul;oiimmisiation' New Delhi - 11002e tr,m,,:f Ut,gf ,.1;m'*$;[ffi[3ls'i+S,''ll='"s**" #;i;ffii BrilJing' Siirioao, Hvderabad- The Commissioner. ot por'c8lb;il;;6fi C"rnmissionerate' At Gachibowli'

Ranoa ReddY District The Assistant Commisstoner of Police' Bachupally' At Bachupally' Ranga Reddv District

7. The Station House Officer, Bachupally police Station, Ar Nizampet, Hyderabad

8. One CC to SR.t N. PRAVEEN REDDY, Advocate [OpU _

9. One CC ro SMT. M. TR|VEN|, novocaie iOpUtl .- - -

10. one CC to SRt G. VENKATESHvARIU .ic Foh cer.rr rAL GoVT topucl \ ll lwS 33t'sf,": ron rio-rte'Iil b;; riiti"Jb't,'tE'.i r;;## [br1-' BN l- 'N\ 1)/

CC TODAY tI HIGH COURT DATED:1210312026 I t ntS 2 fiAq 20iE 'z trr .r. ':, .//<.\; \) U 1, rl ill ir uiK,

ORDER

WP.No.40804 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ..:\r ) th t-