WP/37835/2025 of Tushar Prakash Ajwani Vs The Union of India on 5 March 2026

ORDER:

Petitioner states that he was born and brought up in India and his parents are presently residing in the State of Maharashtra. He pursued his education in India and acquired a Master of Business Administration degree; thereafter, he received employment opportunities in the United States of America, migrated to the United States, and subsequently acquired citizenship of the United States of America. It is stated, he is presently employed in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and shifted to Dubai for the purpose of his employment. He runs a business consultancy hrm providing services to foreign companies and individuals in relation to payment gatcways, currency conversion, and other allied professional s('rvices.

1. 1. Pctitioncr states that he h:rs been providing consultancy scrvice s since Novemb er , 20) 2 and is also engaged in trading acttvities. In the course of his business erctivities, he was approached by a company namely "Swingtide Trade Pvt' Ltd." registercd in MumLrai which requested him to facilitate payment gateways and related communication and IT setups with various paymcnt platforms including PayTM, PayPal and PhonePe. His relationship u'ith Su'ingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd was purely professional in nature and that hc u'as not part and parcel of thc company, nor was he involveci in its management or day-to-dal affairs. He had no rolc in the activities o[ the company a[)art from rcttdering profcssional consultancy services. It is furthcr contcnded, hc received monies from the said companv strictlv tovvards professional scrvices rendered by him.

1.2. I'etitiont'r statcs that during April, 2023, one of the Directors of Srn'ingticle Trade Pvt- Ltd. informed that the company's birnk etcr:ount had been lrozen and requested him to verily the same. IJpon verification, he n'as inforrned that Cyber Crime Station, Girgaon, Mumbai had issued instructions leading to freezing of thc eiccount and that he was required to J take up the issue with the Cyber Crime Station. He immediately visited the Cyber Crime Station, Mumbai and inquired about the reasons for freeziog of the company's bank account. Petitioner contends that during such visit, he was questioned regarding his role in the company, to which he clarihed that he was only a consultant rendering services and he had been requested by the Director to verify the freezing of the bank account. He fumished a-ll the details relating to [he company, including details of its Directors and other related information, and fully cooperated with the inquiry.

1.3. Petitioner states that after two days, he was once again called to the police stalion and questioned further. He once again informed the authorities ol all relevant facts and fully cooperated with the investigation. After questioning and recording of information, police informed him that they were placing him under arrest in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2023 wherein he was arrayed as Accused No. 6. He approached the trial court and oblained bail. Petitioner further states that he subsequently came to know that another crime bearing No. lO4 of 2023 had also been registered against certain persons including himself and that in the said case also, he was granted bail. When the company's account was frozen, he filed an Application seeking defreezing of the bank account and that the learned Judgc grantcd an order defreezing the same. In all the orders passed by thc learned Judges, it u'as opined that thcre was no mone tary benefil derived by him in the alleged crimes and that he had not made any money.

1.4. 11 is contended, petitioner rcccived summons from the 2"d Respondent dated 14.05.2025 requiring him to appear on 04.06.2025; hc immediately informed the 2'd Respondent that he was not available in India on the said date and requested for another date for appcarance. He thereafter, received another summon s dated 14 .O8.2O25 directing to appear on 25.08.2025. It is stated, on 74.O8.2O25, he addressed a communication to the 2"d Respondent explaining, in detail, the circumstanccs and his inability to appear on the specif-red date. He also sought clarification as to wh,r' summons were being served on l-rim and expressed his rvillingncss to provide all information sought. He specificall1, requested the 2'd Responde nt to fttrnish details of the complain t in connection u,ith whir:h he was summoned and also requestcd a copy of the ECIR so as to understand the allegations and enable him to provide necessary information. Till date, he has not been provided with information regarding the complaint pending with the 2"0 Respondent.

)

1.5. peLitioner states that he travelled to India due to a family medical emergency and also to attend a court hearing in connection with an ongoing case. He immediately informed the office of the 2"d Respondent through e mail dated 15. 11.2025 of his availability to appear on 17.l l.2O2S, if required. He also informed the 2"4 Respondent of his intention to return on la.l l .2025 owing to extremely short leave granted by his employer in Dubai. In the said e mail, he also expressed willingness to appear after two weeks, ie. post lg. t l.2O2S, if required. However, he did not receive any response, therefore, proceeded to return to Dubai on 1g.1I.2O25. He was shocked and surprised when he was offloaded and not permitted to board his flight due to I-ook Out Circular issued against him by the 2.d Respondent in connection with the "rrd .."..

1.6. Petitioner states that immediately on lg. I 1.2025 at approximately I l:00 pM, he received e mail from the 2nd Respondent directing him to be present before the olhce on 20.11.2025. Though he was unaware of the precise reasons for his summoning, fearing the consequences, he appeared before the 2"a Respondent on 20.11.2025 and 21.I1.2O25, during which dates, he provided all the information sought and answered all questions relating to the activities of Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. and his professional association with the said I

-l- company. After furnishing information, he was informed that he should provide anv further information if required, and he undcrtook to furnish all information in his possession and assured full participation in the inquiry. He also adclressed e mail dated 27 .11.2025 elaborating upon thc sequence of events, his participation in the inquiry, and his intention to cooperate and requested the 2"d Respondent to lift or cancel the subsisting Look Out Circular and to grant him permission to travel abroad' Petitioner states that he informed the 2"d Respondent ol his pressing cmployment commitments in Dubai ancl his confirmed travel ticket and hc also handed over thc order passcd by the learned Judge granting him permission to leave I ndia bet"r'een t3.O9 .2025 ar.d 31.O7 .2026 for employment purposes | .7 . On 29 .1 | .2025, he received email from thc ollicer of the 2"d Respondent stating that certain additional information u,as required and directing him to submit the sarne by Ol .12.2025. According to petitioner, he submi[ted all the information by e mail dated 01.12-2025- Despitc such submission the 2"d Respondent has no[ revoked the LOC, thereby hampering his employment and causing irreparable loss and grave hardship to him and his famity- 1.8. Petitioner contends that as per the procedure governing issuance and review of took Out Circulars, once a

......,....-- -/2..

I II I ii , l ; I : ,ii I I I i I I person appears before the investigating authority and participates in the inquiry, the Originating Agency is required to assess whether such person is likely to evade investigation or trial by leaving the country. If the assessment reveals that the person is likely to evade, LOC may be continued; otherwise, the same must be deleted by informing the Depufy Director, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi. An LOC remains in force unless a deletion request is received from the Originating Agency and that the Originating Agency is required to periodicaily review the LOC on a quarterly and annual basis and to submit proposals for deletion immediately . after the person appears and participates in the investigation, if the LOC is not required in its assessment. Petitioner asserts that the oflicers concerned are strictly directed to follow the guidelines for opening and reviewing LOCs and to take appropriate action for deletion when continuation is not warranted.

1.9. Petitioner contends that fundamental rights in a democratic setup play a pivotal role and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi a. Union of India interpreted the scope of Article 21 ir-r the widest possible manner. Fundamental rights can be curtailed only by a procedure established by law. The 2nd Respondent ought to exercised caution in issuing and continuing a Look Out Circular I I I I t j I I I ' !i t i ; i I i II , I I I

and that once a pcrson appears and cooperates in the investigation, LOC ought to be recalled or revoked' Petitioner state s that person;rl liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad an<i that no person can bc deprived of this right except in accordance u'ith procedure prescribed b1' lau' It is stated, petitioner ha.d already obtained permission from the trial cor.lrt to travel abroad; despite the same, the 2nd Respondent has not rccalled the LOC, thereby preventing him from leaving for his employment. Petitioner states that he is under threat of losing his cmplolTment, as his employer has issued a communication directing him io join office or face termination, and that loss of cmployment would cause irreparable loss and injury to him and his family which cannot be compensated'

2. The Znd Respondent filed a detailed counter contending thal the Directorate of Enforcement is an investigating agency functioning uncier the Government ol lndia, Ministry of Finance, and is emporvered to investigate matters under thr: Prevention of Money Laundering AcL, 2OO2 (PMLA) and the Foreign Iixchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), and that it is the corlpetent authority to investigate of[ences under t}'re PMLA and FEMA. Thc 2nd Respondent denies all allegations made in Lhe writ petition except those specificallv admitted'

2.1. It is stated, the genesis of the case lies in FIR No. 598 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023 registered at PS Cyber Crime, Hyderabad against unknown suspects under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technolog, Act and Sections 419 and 42O of the IPC. The FIR was based on a written complaint by Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar NV S/o Late N. Bhaskara Rao alleging that he was cheated in the guise of a "Rate and Review" part- time job offered via Telegram and was defrauded of Rs. 25.48 Iakhs. The 2nd Respondent contends that the police investigation in the said FIR is still in progress.

2.2. It is further stated; similar FIRs were registered at multiple police stations under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technologu Act and Sections 419 and 42O lPC, wherein cyber fraudsters induced membdrs of the public by offering part-time jobs for reviewing and rating websitcs, hotels and tourist destinations with promises of high returns, collected huge pre-deposits, and absconded with the lunds. The 2"4 Respondent contends that cyber scam was committed by unknown fraudsters suspected to bc operating from outside India in active connivance with various Indian entities and individuals, some of whom were arrested by PS Cyber Crime in connection with the scheduled offence. It is further contended that the masterminds lured the public by claiming association l0 with Tripadvisor zLnd collected funds in the guise of pre- deposits.

2.3. The 2,,(l Respondent states that since the oflences under Scctions 419 and 42O IPC are scheduled offences under thc PMLA, an Enfclrcement Case Information Report bearing No' E;CIRIHYZO 12512023 was recorded on 25.07 .2023 and investigation under the PMLA was initlated against Prakash Mtrlchandbhai Pra.iapati, Kumar Jitendra Prajapati, Naimuddin Wahidudchn Shaik, Gagan Kumar Soni, Parveez alias Guddu, Shameer Khan, Mohammed Munawar, Shah Sumair, Arul Das anrl unknorvn otht:rs to identily proceeds of crime generated out of the cyber frauds and laundered for personal gains.

2.1. The 2"a Respondent contends that Writ Petition reflects insecurity'on the part of Petitioner and hc rushed to this Collrt \r,ithout genuine apprehension. It is stated that summons were issued lo hin.r undcr Section 5O of the PMLA on 74.O5.2025 and 14.O8.2O25 lbr his examination, but he failed to appear and, by e mail dated 26.05.2025, informed that he is neilher a citizen nor rcsident of India, is a citizen of the United States of America residing in the United Arab Emirates, trnd was unable to travel to India for appearance on 04.O6.2025. The 2"d Rcspondcnt further states that even after service of proper annexures to thc summons dated 14.05.2025 seeking certain )' ,t L -l J lt i I I i :! I I I I I data and information, Petitioner stated that the summons did not contain details of thc case for which his presence was required.

2.5. The 2"a Respondent contends that considering the sensitive nature of the investigation and the necessiqr of the Petitioner's examination for tracing proceeds of crime and examining his role under the PMLA, summons dated 14 .Oa.2025 were issued requiring his appearance on

25. OA.2O25. He did not respond and, one day prior to the scheduled appearance, by e mail dated 24.Og.2O25, again expressed inability to travel due to work commitments in UAE. Despite receipt of summons on two occasions, petitioner failed to appear and failed to furnish basic details sought. By [e tter dated O1.O9.2025 in response to summons dated 14.0g.2025, petitioner reiterated that he had no house in [ndia, stayed u,ith his parents in Mumbai during visits, and that the summons did not disclose details of the case.

2.6. The 2"d Respondent states thaL pe[itioner was in India from November 2022 to November 2023 intending to start a business in consultancy and came into contact with M/ s Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. to facilitate payment gateivay services and related IT setup. The 2"d Respondent contends that in April 2O23, upon freezing of the company's bank account by

Cyber Crime DcllartmenL, Girgaon, Mumbai, petitioner approached thc Cr ber Crime authorities and was questioned about his role. Tvvc, days later, hc was arrested and arrayed as Accused No. 6 in OC No. PW l32O 1323 and was informed that M/ s Swingtide Trade Pvt. Ltd. had received indirect funds obtained by fraud. The 2"d Respondent further states that in September 2023, Petitioner was arrested by Cyber Crime Department, Pune during investigation of a cyber crime case ancl was grzrnted biril b]. 6161sp dated 1O.11.2023.

2.7. ffig 'rna Respondent contends that in view of petitioner's failurc to appear despite summons and failure to furnish <:ompletc rcquisite data and information, and considcring thc gr:rvit1' and nature of the offence, a Look Out Circular rvas issucrl agarnst him on 12.1O.2025. By e mail dated

15. 1 1.2O25, petitioner informed that he had arrived in Mumbai for a familv medical emergency and exprcssed rvillingness to appear on 17.I \.2025 or at a later date two weeks thereafter, as hc: had bookcd return travel for 7A.11.2025. The 2nd Respondent cont('nds that Pctitioner did not communicate telephonicalh, regarding his arrival and attempted to leave India on the night of 18. I 1.2O25 until he u'as detected on the LOC by the Bureau of lrnmigration. Upon delection and as per the parameters of thc LOC, he u,as prevcnted from leaving the \,Y

ll country. After receipt of e mail from the Bureau of Immigration, Respondent informed Petitioner by e mail dated 18. I 1.2O25 to appear on 20. 1 1.2025 lor examination.

2. A. The 2"d Respondent contends that considering his time constraints and in compliance with principles of natural justice, his deposition was recorded on 2O. I 1.2O25 and 21.11.2025 under Section 50 of the PMLA. During examination, certain questions relating to his role and involvement were put to him and he undertook to submit relevant data and information by 25. 1 1.2025. The 2"d Respondent states that he failed to submit the undertaken information and tendered lalse statements. Thereafter, by e mail dated 28.11.2025, Petitioner requested lifting or revocation of the LOC to enable him to travel to Dubai. The 2'd Respondent contends that by e mail dated 29.11.2025, he was given another opportunity to submit pendrng information by 01.12.2025. However, by e mail dated 01.12.2025, he again failed to submit complete data and information, demonstrating non-cooperation and evasiveness.

2.9. tt is also stated, petitioner has been charge-sheeted as Accused No. 6 in FIR No. ll of 2023 dated 10.O4.2O23 of PS South Cyber, Crime Branch, Mumbai and as Accused No. 1 in FIR No. lO4 of 2023 dated 1 1.O7.2023 of PS Cyber Crime, Pune City, Maharashtra, relatable to the scheduled offences. During t4 investigation, it was revcalcd that both the above FIRs are intcrlinkecl and connected s'ith the instant case, as multiple primary and scconrlary laycr bank accounts used for collection antl layering of procecds of crime were common across the cases. It is stated that summons were issued to Dilip May'ur Nikam, Mehul Chhadwa and Anshu Yadav, Director of Mis SBS Recharge l\t. Ltd., and thcir state ments were recorded. These statements revealed that Tllshar Prakash Ajwani was arranging funds through Aditi Parmar and that Dilip Mayur Nikam was arranging USDT through in termediaries including Spay India, Quicksun Technologies Pvt. Ltd., SBS Recharge, Mehul Chhadrva, Paresh Shah, Pintu Singh @ Balvir Singh and others. 2.1O. 11 is also stated, Whals App chat screenshots of gr()ups comprising Petitioncr, Mayur Diiip Nikam and Aditi Prrrmar revealecl tir:rt Aditi Parmar shared crypto wallet details for receiving USDT against transfer of online funds into bank accounts shared b_v Petitioner and Diiip Mayur Nikam. It is contended that scveral bank account details and contact nurmbcrs o[ suspcc[s were found in the mobile phone of the Pctitioner seized by PS C.yber Crime, Pune City, and that investigation is still in progress as numerous bank accounts are . involved and connccted rvith the instant case involving victims across India \ rh() \\'erc chcated through lake tour and travel

t5 promotion links and whose funds were converted into USDT and layered further. 2.1| . The 2"d Respondent states that examination of the above persons revealed that M/s SBS Recharge Pvt. Ltd. alone had received proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 15 Crores from multiple primary and secondary layer bank accounts and handed over cash to others for conversion into USDT and transfer to crypto wallets shared by Aditi Parmar to Tushar Prakash Ajwani and Mayur Dilip Nikam. Petitioner is part of a chain wherein proceeds of crime were converted into USDT in lieu of commission and that being a citiznn of the United States, there exists every possibility that he may leave India and it would be difhcult to secure his presence before the Court for fair trial. There is a strong possibility that Petitioner may not appear before the Directorate, thereby hampering ongoing investigation and actions rclating to attachment of proceeds of crime and prosecution of persons involved in money laundering.

2.12. The 2"d Respondent furttrer states that Petitioner failed to provide details of his associates including Amit Sahani, Aditi Parmar and others involved in collection and conversion of proceeds of crime into cash or USDT, and that his examination regarding receipt of commission and matters relating to charge sheets fiIed by PS South Cyber Crime Branch, Mumbai and PS

l6 Cyher Crime , Pune City is still pcnding. [t is also contended that the Petitioner continued to remain part of a Whats App group \.ith Aditi Pannar :rnd Dilip Mayr-rr Nikam even after freezing of bank accounts shared by Dilip Ma1'ur Nikam lor receipt of funds from Adrti Parmar for conversion into USDT. In view of the above, it is conterrded, the Look Out Circular issued against Pel.itioner ought not to be revoked and prays that no relief be granted until his complete examination is concluded or until final conclusion of the case, rvhichevcr is later.

3. Heard Ms. Monica P. Pole, learned counsel representir-rg Sri P. Subash, lehrned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.T. Kalyan. Iearned Standing Counsel for Central G()vernment.

4. From thc matcrial on record, it is to be noticed, the Enforcemcnt Case lnformation Report bearing No. E.CIR/HYZOl25/2023 dated 25.07.2O23 arises out of FIR No. 598 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023 registered at PS Cyber Crime, Hyderabad, based on allegations of cyber fraud involving cheating to thc tunc of Rs. 25.48 lakhs in the guise of "Rate and Re view" part-l ime employment oflers circulatcd through Telegram- 'l'he offences ini,oked under Scctions 419 and 42O IPC are undisputecllv scheduled olfences under the Prevention of Mone5, Laundering Act, 2OO2. Once a scheduled offence is 1'7 registered and material discloses generation of proceeds of crime, the Directorate of Enforcement is statutorily empowered to register an ECIR and initiate investigation under the provisions o[ the PM LA. The authority of the Directorate in this regard is traceable to statute and is not in dispute.

5. Section 5O of the PMLA confers power upon the authorized ollicer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce records during the course of investigation. Proceedings under Section 5O are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of thc IPC. Therefore, summons issued under Section 5O carry statutory force and cannot be treated as mere administrative communications. The record reflects that summons wcre issued to Petitioner on 14.05.2025 requiring his appearance on 04.06.2025 and again on 14.08.2025, requiring his appearance on 25.08.2025. lt is an admitted position that Petitioner did not appear pursuant to the said summons. Though he to travel on account of his expressed inability the United Arab Emirates and his status as a residence in citizen of the United States of America, the fact remains that the investigating authority was deprived of his examination at the relevant time. Issuance of t-ok Out Circular on 12.10.2025 was preceded by such non-appearance.

1t{

6. Pctitioner arrived InCia on 15.11.2025 and t:ommunicated by e mail expressing u,illingness to appear either on 1 7. 1 L2O25 or tr"r'o r.r,eeks thercafter. Ho'"l,ever, he attempted to depart India on 18.11.2025 w'ithout securing conltrmation from the investigating authority regarding rescheduling of his examination. Upon detection pursuant to the LOC by the Bureau of Immigration, he was pre vented from leaving the country. Thereafter, he rvas examined on 2O.1 1.2O25 and 21.11.2025 under Section 50 of the PMLA.

7. The principal issue for consideration is whether continuation of [,ook Out Circu lar alter his examination on 20.17.2025 and !) 1.11.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of Articles t+, 19(1)(g) ar-rd 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Thc countcr discloses lhat during examination, petitioner undertook to furnish certain information and data by 25.11.2025. It is specil-rcally avcrred that he failed to furnish the undertaken information and that the material supptied subsequentlv on O 1. 12.2025 u,as incomplete. It is further averred that his examination in relation to ccrtain associates, including persons allegedll, involved in conversion of proceeds of crime into USDT, and in relaLion to charge sheets hled in FIR No. 11 ot 2023 datcd 10.O4.2023 of pS South Cyber, Crime ,.?

- l9 Branch, Mumbai and FIR No. 1O4 of 2023 dated I 1.O7.2023 of PS Cyber Crime, Pune City, is still pending.

9. The material placed by Respondents also indicates that the investigation concerns interlinked FIRs, multiple primary and secondary layer bank accounts, and alleged conversion of proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 15 Crores into USDT crypto currency. Statements of other persons recorded under investigation allegedly implicate Petitioner in arranging funds through Aditi Parmar and in sharing bank accounts for receipt of online funds which were thereafter converted into crypto assets. Whether these .allegations ultimately result in prosecution or conviction is not a matter for determination at this stage. However, for the limited purpose of assessing justil-rcation for continuation of an LOC, the Court must consider whether there exists prima facie material warranting further examination and securing of presence.

10. The guidelines governing look Out Circulars contemplate that the Originating Agency must assess whether the subject is likely to evade investigation or trial. Such assessment is essentially factual in nature and involves evaluation of conduct, past compliance, gravity of offence, and possibility of non-availability. Judicial review of such t0 assessment is limited to examining '*'hether the decision is arbitrar,r,, mala fide, or u'ithout material basis Ll. In the present casc, Petitioner did not respond to two surlmons issued in May and August 2025. He attempted to depart lndia on 18. I ),.2025 prior to securing conllrmation regarding his examination. He is admittedly, a citizen of the United Statcs of America residing in the United Arab Emirates. He is charge-sheetecl as Accused No. 6 in FIR No. 11 of 2023 and as Accused No. 1 in FIR No. lO4 of 2023. His examination under Section 50 of the PMLA is stated to be incomplete, with pending queries relating to associates and alleged receipt of commission in connection with conversion of procceds of crime into USDT.

12. In t.hese circumstances, the apprchension expressed byr Respondent that there exists a possibility of Pe titioner leaving India and not being readily available for further investigation cannot be said to be unfounded or irrational. The decision to continue LOC is thus supported by materiaI considerations and cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The reliance placed by Petitioner on the judqment in Maneka Gandhi u. Union of India is duly noted. There can be no dispute that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal libcrt-v under Articlc 21. Howeve r, the said right is noL absolute.

2t It is subject to procedure established by law. The PMLA is a special legislation enacted to combat the menace of money laundering and confers statutory powers upon the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate oflences relating to proceeds of crime. When investigation is pending and presence of a person is considered necessary, reasonable restrictions imposed in accordalce with statutory procedure cannot be held per se violative of Article 2 1 .

13. The permission granted by the trial Court permitting travel between 13.09 .2025 and 3l .O7 .2026 rn connection with other criminal proceedings does not automatically bind the Directorate of Enforcement in respect of proceedings under the PMLA. Each authority acts within the scope of its statutory mandate. Mere existence of a travel permission in one proceeding does not extinguish powers of another statutory authorit5r where independent investigation is pending.

14. The scope of interference under Article 226 does not extend to substituting the subjective satisfaction of the investigating agency with that of the Court, particularly in matters involving assessment of flight risk and necessity of securing presence during investigation. The Court does not sit in appeal over investigative discretion unless it is shown that the action is vitiated bv mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, or abscnce oI j urisd iction.

15. In the present case, no maLerial is placed before this Court lo establish mala fides or colourable exercise of po\ rcr. Thc L()C . was issued after non-compliance with summons. Its continuation is justihed on the ground of incomplete examination, gravity of alleged offences involving large-scalc cyber fraud and money laundering, interlinked FIRs, ancl Petitioner's foreign citizenship and residence abroad. The procedure adoptecl cannot be said to be unknown to law or dehors statulory authority. This Court is therefore, satisfied lhat thc action of the 2nd Respondent in continuing the Look Or-r t Circular is base d on relevant matcrial and a rational nexus with the ob..lcct of securing presence of the Petitioner for ongoing investigation. No violation of Articles l+, l9(1)(g) or 21 is made olrt in the facts of thc case. 1(r. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that Pt'Litioncr failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, or constitutional infirmity in the continuation of the Look Out Circuiar issued on 12.1O.2025. Thc impugned action is trzrr:eablc to statutory power under the Prevention of Money Laurndering Act,'2OO2 and is supported by matenal on record.

To, BSR BS w :, 17 . The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, i[ any, shall stand closed. / -P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI P.SUBASH, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI V T KALYAN, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. [OPUCI

3. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED: 0510312026

ORDER

WP.No.37835 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

l. tiiE S U

t c -.1 I

,) J

t.): ,(:

\ ii + illq t ]..l L.l ,./, i * t, cO )h \