Delhi High Court removed LOC and proclaimed offender tag against an Australian man in a rape case, citing improper procedure. Court said continuous cooperation with investigators cannot be treated as absconding.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court cancelled a Look Out Circular (LOC) and removed the proclaimed offender status against an Australian citizen accused in a rape case, after he argued that he had been “honey-trapped”.
The case became more serious when the man also accused Delhi Police officials of wrongdoing. Due to these allegations, the High Court had earlier transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In its order dated March 18, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the investigating agency was in regular contact with the man. The Court observed that he had replied to notices and submitted documents during the investigation process.
Importantly, the Court found that at no point during this communication was the man informed that he had already been declared a proclaimed offender or shown as absconding. This raised serious concerns about the fairness of the process followed.
“A person who is in continuous communication with the investigating agency and is responding to its directions cannot, in the ordinary course, be said to be absconding or concealing himself from the process of law. Moreover, the failure of the investigating agency to inform the petitioner about the proclamation proceedings, despite being in regular contact with him, assumes significance and lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that he was kept unaware of the same,” said the court.
The case started from allegations made by an 18-year-old woman, who claimed that the man raped her at a hotel in South Delhi in March 2018. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered under charges of rape and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code.
However, the situation took a different turn when the man filed a complaint stating that he was forced to pay money by the woman, her relatives, and certain police officials. Following this, another FIR was registered for offences like extortion and criminal conspiracy.
In January 2020, the High Court transferred both FIR investigations to the CBI to ensure a fair probe.
Before this transfer, the trial court had issued non-bailable warrants against the man and later started proclamation proceedings. In December 2019, he was declared a “proclaimed person” for not appearing before the court, and an LOC was issued to alert immigration authorities.
The High Court noted that authorities were fully aware that the man had left India in March 2018 and was living in Australia. Despite this, no proper steps were taken to serve notices to him at his foreign address or through official international channels.
“Despite knowledge of the petitioner’s presence abroad, no meaningful steps were taken to ensure proper service before initiating proclamation proceedings,” said the court.
The Court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It recorded that the man had tried to get permission from Australian authorities to travel to India for the investigation, but his request was rejected due to travel restrictions.
In such a situation, the Court held that his inability to come to India could not be used against him.
Taking all these factors into account, the High Court cancelled the trial court’s order declaring him a proclaimed offender and also quashed all related actions, including the LOC.
However, the Court directed the man to appear before the trial court within four weeks. It also clarified that the trial in the rape case will continue as per law.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Legal Provision | What It Means (Simple) | Role in This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Rape | Punishment for rape | Main allegation by prosecutrix |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal Intimidation | Threatening someone with harm | Added in FIR by complainant |
| Section 384 IPC | Extortion | Forcing someone to give money | FIR filed by accused alleging money demand |
| Section 120B IPC | Criminal Conspiracy | Planning illegal act with others | Linked to alleged honey trap/extortion |
| Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Order for FIR | Court can order police to register FIR | Used by woman to initiate rape FIR |
| Section 160 CrPC | Police Notice for Investigation | Police can call person for questioning | Used by CBI to contact accused |
| Section 82 CrPC | Proclaimed Offender | Declaring person absconding | Used to declare accused absconder |
| Section 83 CrPC | Attachment of Property | Seizing property of absconder | Linked to proclamation proceedings |
| Section 299 CrPC | Trial in Absence | Evidence recorded without accused | Used after declaring him absconder |
| Section 482 CrPC | High Court Powers | To prevent misuse of law | Used by accused to challenge orders |
| Article 21 Constitution | Right to Life & Liberty | Protection from unfair procedure | Raised due to procedural lapses |
| Article 20 Constitution | Protection in Criminal Law | Safeguards against unfair prosecution | Invoked against coercive action |
Case Details
- Case Title: Manish Popli vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
- Connected Case Title: State v. Manish Popli @ Aashu
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2454/2022
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench (Coram): Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Judgment Reserved: 18.12.2025
- Judgment Pronounced: 18.03.2026
- Judgment Uploaded: 24.03.2026
- Petitioner: Manish Popli
- Respondents: Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Counsels
- For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Ms. Aekta Vats and Ms. Janvi, Advocates
- For CBI: Special Public Prosecutor Anubha Bhardwaj with Ms. Ananya Shamshery and Mr. Vijay Misra, Advocates, along with Inspector Avinash (IO)
Procedural Details
- FIR No. 162/2018 – Sections 376/506 IPC (rape case)
- FIR No. 281/2018 – Sections 384/120B IPC (extortion case by accused)
- NBWs issued → May 2019
- Proclamation proceedings → August 2019
- Declared proclaimed person → 13.12.2019
- LOC issued → 24.05.2019
- Investigation transferred to CBI → 09.01.2020
Key Takeaways
- A man cooperating with investigation was still branded absconder — shows how procedure is weaponised, not followed.
- Police knew he was abroad, yet fake service at Indian address was used to declare him proclaimed offender.
- Even while agencies were talking to him, they hid his “absconder” status — clear procedural manipulation.
- Cross FIR of extortion and honey trap angle exposes how cases can be flipped to trap men legally.
- Court had to step in to correct abuse — proving system fails men first, fixes later.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
