The company filed a writ petition challenging the provisional attachment orders under section 132(9B) of the Act. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the company, in addition to the fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 100 crores directed to be made by order dated April 21, 2022, to place another fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 100 crores to be renewed automatically from time to time. The Department was directed not to release any refund and the company was directed not to repatriate any royalty or dividend abroad. The respondent filed an application before the trial court seeking quashing of the look-out circular, upon which the trial court passed an order holding that the complaint against the respondent was for commission of offence punishable under section 275B read with 278B of the Act which was a non-cognisable and bailable offence, that the look-out circular could not have been issued citing that complaint, that in the complaint case the respondent had appeared and was admitted to bail, that the departure of the respondent could not be stated to be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, or to bilateral relations with any other country or to strategic or economic interest of India. However, since the respondent did not have any movable or immovable assets in India, none of his family members and relatives resided in India, and there was little incentive for him to come to India once he left the country, the court ordered that in case of resignation, retirement or cessation of employment, etc., of the respondent, the company shall withhold the severance pay or severance package and other incentives and emoluments payable to the respondent and these shall not be released without prior permission of the court. On a writ petition by the Department for stay of the order of the trial court and quashing thereof, citing Office Memorandum dated December 5, 2017 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners’ Division, by which the guidelines in Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010 for issue of look-out circulars were amended, and contending that permitting the departure of the respondent would affect the economic interest of the country, inasmuch as, the investigation into the evasion of taxes of more than Rs. 600 crores by the company was in progress and the respondent having been the chief executive officer at the relevant time, in terms of section 278B of the Act, was liable to be held guilty of the offence committed by the company and to be proceeded against accordingly qua the alleged commission of the offence punishable under section 276C(1)(i) of the Act which was a non-bailable offence punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years. Held that the offences punishable under section 275B read with section 278B of the Act alleged against the respondent on account of denial of adequate facility to the authorised officers empowered under section 132 of the Act were non-cognizable and bailable. In terms of Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding issuance of look-out circulars with regard to Indian citizens and foreigners, no look-out circular could have been issued in relation to an alleged commission of a non-cognizable offence. The Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010 was amended by Office Memorandum dated December 5, 2017 to the effect that in exceptional cases look-out circulars could be issued even in cases not covered by the guidelines whereby the departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities as mentioned in Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010, if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person was detrimental to the sovereignty, security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interest of India or if such person is allowed to leave or he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger interest at any given point in time. The allegations against the respondent did not relate to any aspect of the departure of the respondent being detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India nor to bilateral relations with any country nor to the strategic interest of the country nor was it the case that the respondent was potentially likely to indulge in any act of terrorism or offences against the State or that his departure ought not be permitted in the larger interest at any given point in time. The pro forma for issuance of the look-out circular indicated the nationality of the respondent was of China, that apart from the aspect of the companies having been alleged to make a wilful attempt to evade tax, it had been alleged in the proposal for issuance of the look-out circular that during the course of the search, the companies and their officers and employees had failed to provide adequate opportunity to the authorised officers for examination of the books of account of the companies thus impeding the authorised officers from discharging their duties and that thus the presence of the chief executive officer (the respondent) was necessary during the course of further investigation which would be carried out and that the on-going investigation into various violations committed by the companies would take ample time due to the examination of extensive evidence that had been seized and due to offences committed by the companies and their employees thus necessitating the issuance of the look-out circular, inter alia, against the respondent. The approval accorded to the issuance of the look-out circular took into account the aspect of the respondent being a flight risk from whom a number of details were stated to be required. The investigation into the alleged commission of the offence punishable under section 276C(1)(i) of the Act, 1961 by the companies of which the respondent at the relevant time was stated to have been the chief executive officer, would apparently take considerable time, and the respondent was alleged to have committed only a non-cognizable and bailable offence and per se himself could not be attributed to have committed acts detrimental to the economic interest of India especially coupled with the factum that there was no allegation that the respondent was a shareholder of the company. The company had adhered to the directions of a fixed deposit of Rs. 200 crores to be renewed automatically from time to time apart from refund of Rs. 30 crores having not been directed to be released by the Deputy Director could not be overlooked. Undoubtedly taking into account the factum that there was no extradition treaty of our country with China, the respondent fell within the category of a flight risk, but, he was alleged to have committed only a non-cognizable and an alleged bailable offence. Though the order of the trial court which had set aside the look-out circular against the respondent was not set aside, in addition to the conditions imposed by the trial court as regards withholding of severance pay and severance package and other incentives and emoluments payable to the respondent the court further directed that the respondent shall further submit an undertaking to the trial court that he shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer through video conferencing and furthermore, the respondent shall submit an undertaking to the trial court that on commencement of the trial, if any, against him, he shall appear before the trial court as and when directed and in the mode directed by the trial court, that the respondent may be permitted to travel out of India only subject to the respondent submitting a fixed deposit receipt to the tune of Rs. 5 crores drawn on a nationalised Indian bank in the trial court which on deposit was to be renewed in an automatic renewal mode which on the failure of the respondent to join the investigation twice or on failure to appear before the trial court as and when directed by the trial court shall be forfeited. The release of the fixed deposit receipt would be subject to the determination and adjudication of the criminal complaint against the respondent and the respondent shall also adhere to the conditions imposed in the bail order of the trial court of informing the complainant seven days prior to leaving India. (AY. 2020-21)