Karnataka HC Expresses Deep Displeasure Over Lookout Circular Issued for Bailable Offences Against Advocate-Cricketer
The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a lookout circular, recording that it would not be enforced, while expressing deep displeasure at police for issuing it in a bailable offence case.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru disposed of a writ petition filed by an advocate and cricketer who had been subjected to a lookout circular and subsequently arrested at Kempegowda International Airport, all in connection with offences that were entirely bailable in nature. Justice T.P. Vivekananda, sitting singly, recorded on 24 August 2026 that the police would no longer implement or enforce the lookout circular, accepted that assurance as sufficient to redress the petitioner's grievance, and disposed of the petition accordingly. The court did not, however, leave the matter without comment: it expressed deep displeasure against the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, for taking the extreme step of issuing a lookout circular in a case involving only bailable offences.
The Dispute Before the Court
Sri Aravind Reddy, the petitioner, is an advocate and a cricketer who has represented the Karnataka Advocates Cricket Team and captained the Indian Advocates Cricket Team. He had made at least 42 foreign trips between 2010 and 2025, immigration records placed before the court confirmed.
A complaint was lodged against him on 17 October 2025 at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station. An FIR was registered the same day in Crime No. 322 of 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 78(2), 79, 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The matter arose from what the court described as a personal relationship that had soured; the complainant, who was in the entertainment industry, was not made a party to the writ petition.
The FIR was also transferred from Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station to Govindarajanagar Police Station, without any reason being placed on record. A lookout circular was then issued against Reddy. On 6 November 2025 — nearly three weeks after the FIR was registered — he travelled to Sri Lanka for a cricket tournament. He returned to India on 15 November 2025 and was arrested at the airport upon landing, on the basis of the lookout circular. He was produced before the XLVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, the same day. Since the offences were bailable, he was enlarged on bail after complying with the conditions imposed.
Reddy's arrest at the airport attracted wide coverage in news and social media, which, his counsel submitted, had tarnished his reputation as both an advocate and a sportsman. He approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking revocation of the lookout circular and directions restraining the police from issuing any further such circular in connection with the same case.
The Stay Granted in December 2025 and the State's Position
When the petition came up for interim orders on 4 December 2025, Justice Vivekananda had already expressed scepticism about the basis for the circular. The court had noted that the complaint appeared to concern a private relationship dispute and recorded its considered opinion that “there is no danger of the petitioner being a flight risk requiring a Lookout Circular.” The lookout circular was stayed until the next date of hearing.
By the time the matter came up for final hearing, the Advocate General's counsel (AGA) informed the court, on instructions from the official respondents, that the lookout circular would no longer be implemented or enforced since the petitioner had already returned to India, been arrested at the airport, and been enlarged on bail by the Magistrate.
The AGA also filed a memo enclosing the correspondence between the official respondents, including a communication dated 7 March 2026 from Respondent No. 3 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bangalore West) to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence, requesting cancellation of the lookout circular with reference to the interim order passed by the High Court. The memo also placed on record the petitioner's immigration history, furnished by the Bureau of Immigration to the Govindarajanagar Police Station.
Whether the Lookout Circular Was Justified
The petitioner's counsel pressed the court to go further and hold that the issuance of the lookout circular for bailable offences was a violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and to initiate action against the official respondents.
The AGA's response was that the lookout circular was issued because the petitioner was not available for contact, given his continued foreign travel, and that it was intended only to secure his presence for investigation. The AGA characterised the issuance as unintentional.
The court examined the timeline closely. The FIR was registered on 17 October 2025. The petitioner travelled to Sri Lanka only on 6 November 2025 — twenty days later. The court found that nothing in the writ petition papers or in the documents filed with the memo showed what investigative steps, if any, the police had taken between 17 October 2025 and 6 November 2025 to trace or contact the petitioner. Given this gap, the court observed that it could not be said that the petitioner had travelled abroad in anticipation of his arrest. He had, in any event, returned voluntarily on 15 November 2025.
The court held that since the AGA had categorically stated the lookout circular would no longer be implemented, the apprehension and difficulty of the petitioner stood redressed. It declined to enter further into the constitutional arguments, treating them as unwarranted given that the primary relief had been achieved. On the prayer to direct Respondent No. 9, the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, to investigate alleged human rights violations, the court noted that no relief had actually been sought against the Commission and that the petitioner had not even approached it. The Commission's counsel stated it would consider any such complaint if filed in accordance with law. The court held that any human rights grievance was a separate cause of action outside the scope of the present writ petition.
The Court's Expression of Displeasure
Although the petition was disposed of without a formal finding on the constitutional validity of the lookout circular, the court did not treat the episode as unremarkable. Justice Vivekananda recorded that the court expressed “deep displeasure” against Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 — the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Bangalore West), the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Bangalore West Sub-Division, Vijayanagar) and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City — for taking the extreme step of issuing a lookout circular pursuant to a crime registered for bailable offences.
The court's displeasure rests on a factual foundation: the offences alleged were all bailable; the petitioner had no knowledge of the FIR when he travelled abroad; he departed India twenty days after the FIR was registered, not immediately after; and he returned voluntarily within nine days of departure. The immediate and wide media coverage of the airport arrest, and its consequences for the petitioner's professional reputation, formed part of the factual backdrop the court acknowledged.
Outcome
Justice T.P. Vivekananda disposed of Writ Petition No. 36586 of 2025 on 24 August 2026. The court recorded the AGA's submission that the lookout circular against Aravind Reddy would not be implemented or enforced. The petition was disposed of on that basis. The court simultaneously expressed deep displeasure against the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Bangalore West), the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Bangalore West Sub-Division) and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, for issuing a lookout circular in connection with a case involving only bailable offences. Any grievance relating to alleged violation of human rights was left open as a separate cause of action, to be pursued before the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in the manner known to law.