The Bombay High Court has quashes the look-out circulars (LOCs) that were issued against actor Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their father, who is an army veteran.

Following the Sushant Singh Rajput case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had issued the look-out circulars (LOCs), which limit an individual's ability to travel abroad without prior court approval. The order to quash these LOCs was pronounced by Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande.

During the hearing, the court raised doubts regarding the CBI's argument that merely registering a First Information Report (FIR) warranted the issuance of LOCs.

Additionally, the court raised concerns about jurisdiction, noting that the original FIR against Chakraborty was lodged by Sushant Singh Rajput's family in Patna before the case was transferred to the CBI in Delhi. Advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Prasanna Bhangale, representing Chakraborty, contended that Mumbai was the appropriate venue for filing the petition, as both Rajput and Chakraborty were residents of the city, and significant portions of the investigation had been conducted there.

Advocate Ayaz Khan, representing Showik Chakraborty and their father, reiterated the assertion that Mumbai was the appropriate jurisdiction. He emphasized that the issuance of LOCs should only be justified if there is evidence of the accused actively evading arrest or court proceedings, which, according to him, was not the case here.

On the other side, representing the CBI, advocate Shreeram Shirsat countered these arguments. He referred to previous court orders that had denied Rhea's plea to transfer the case to Mumbai, suggesting that the jurisdictional issue had already been addressed in prior legal proceedings.

During the hearing, the bench observed that there needed to be a conclusion in a case at some point. The said matter didn't involve a financial fraud, which could take a long time to resolve. The court cited an instance where a travel ban (LOC) was issued against a witness, preventing them from going abroad to earn a living. 

The court questioned who would come forward as a witness if such actions are taken. The court stated that there should be some discretion exercised as well. It asked what the concern was if the travel ban was lifted in this case.