LOC got striked down against actor Rhea Chakraborty and her family in Sushant Singh Rajput Case!!

Mumbai: Bollywood actor Rhea Chakraborty accompanied by her brother Showik arrives to appear before the Enforcement Directorate for questioning in a money laundering probe vis-a-vis the Sushant Singh Rajput case, in Mumbai on Aug 10, 2020. (Photo: IANS)

The LOCs were issued against Rhea Chakraborty and her entire family in August 2020 after the suspicious death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. But that did not state any particular ‘reasons’ for issuance and neither were the LOCs reviewed as it is mandated under the Consolidated Guidelines, as, the Bombay High Court observed.The LOCs were issued against Rhea and her brother Showik and her father too.

“An LOC cannot be issued as a matter of course” – division bench of justice Revati Mohite.

A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande has questioned the arguments of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and said, “The LOCs are quashed and set aside. We have dismissed your [CBI] arguments on maintainability.” The Bench has also observed that the CBI’s apprehension of the three Chakrabortys of fleeing from the country was never mentioned as a reason in their previous circulars.

What is an LOC? An LOC restricts anY individual from travelling abroad without prior permission of the court. In 2020, an LOC was issued by the CBI against Ms. Rhea Chakraborty, her brother and father in connection with Sushant Singh Rajput’s suspicious death probe, which was a suicide. In December 2023, the Bombay High Court had suspended the LOC issued against Ms. Rhea Chakraborty and permitted her to travel to Dubai for work.

The right to travel is a fundamental right for any person and it cannot be curtailed except according to the due procedure established by law. The Bombay high court has said this on Thursday. The court also has struck down the look-out circulars (LOCs) issued against actor Rhea Chakraborty, her brother and their parents. The court further has said that this case did not involve any financial fraud that could take this much long time to resolve, so it needed a conclusion.