Deposit ₹60 Crore First: Bombay HC's Stringent Condition for Shetty-Kundra's Foreign Travel Plea

MUMBAI – In a significant move underscoring the judiciary's increasingly robust stance on financial crime allegations, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has imposed a stringent condition on actor Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra. The couple, seeking permission to travel abroad amidst an ongoing investigation into an alleged ₹60 crore fraud, was directed to first deposit the entire disputed amount with the court before their plea would be considered.

The order, which ties the fundamental right to travel directly to a substantial financial deposit, highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between an individual's liberty and the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving high-profile accused and significant flight risk concerns.

The Core of the Dispute: A Look Out Circular and Fraud Allegations

The matter came before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. Shetty and Kundra had approached the High Court with a petition to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against them. The LOC stems from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by businessman Deepak Kothari, who alleges that the couple conspired to defraud him of over ₹60 crores between 2015 and 2023 under the guise of business expansion, allegedly diverting the funds for personal use.

The couple's counsel presented a detailed itinerary for proposed foreign travel, including a now-lapsed trip to Phuket, an event hosted by YouTube in Los Angeles, another event in Colombo, and a business trip to the Maldives with her husband. The argument presented to the court was that their full cooperation with the investigating agency should be a determining factor in granting them permission to travel for professional and personal commitments.

However, the bench, and particularly the Chief Justice, appeared unmoved by this line of reasoning.

Judicial Skepticism and the Weight of Cooperation

Chief Justice Chandrashekhar delivered a sharp rebuttal to the argument that the couple's cooperation warranted lenient travel conditions. He clarified that their cooperation was the very reason they had not been arrested in the case, implying it was the expected legal minimum, not a bargaining chip for additional liberties.

"You deposit the entire amount in this court and we will consider the request then, but subject to their arguments," Chief Justice Chandrashekhar stated unequivocally, making the ₹60 crore deposit a non-negotiable prerequisite for the court's consideration of their travel application.

This judicial stance is critical for legal practitioners. It signals that in cases of significant financial allegations, cooperation with an investigation may only be sufficient to avoid pre-trial detention, but it may not be enough to persuade a court to grant permissions that could be perceived as increasing the risk of the accused absconding.

The court's skepticism was further evidenced by its reaction to the couple's travel plans. When informed that an invitation to a YouTube event in Los Angeles was extended via a phone call, the bench immediately demanded verification. "Then furnish the numbers, we will get it verified," CJ Chandrashekhar remarked, indicating the court's intent to rigorously scrutinize the legitimacy and necessity of the proposed travel.

The "Foreign National" Argument and Apprehension of Flight

Adding another layer to the proceedings, the counsel for the complainant, Deepak Kothari, raised a crucial point regarding the couple's nationality.

"As per my knowledge, the applicants (Kundra & Shetty) are foreign nationals and thus there is an apprehension (of not returning to India)," the counsel submitted.

This argument is a standard and often effective tool used by prosecutors and complainants to oppose travel applications, especially in cases where the accused possesses foreign citizenship and has significant assets or connections abroad. While the court did not explicitly base its decision on this submission, it undoubtedly formed part of the background context influencing the bench's cautious approach. The apprehension of an accused becoming a fugitive from justice is a paramount consideration for any court when adjudicating on the relaxation of bail or travel restrictions.

Legal Implications and Precedential Value

The High Court's directive is more than just a procedural order; it carries significant legal implications. By linking the consideration of a travel plea to the deposit of the entire disputed amount, the court is employing a powerful tool to secure the financial interests of the complainant and ensure the accused's continued presence and participation in the legal process.

For legal professionals, this case serves as a potent example of the court's discretionary powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). While conditions for bail and travel are common, demanding a deposit equivalent to the entire alleged fraud amount as a pre-condition for even hearing the travel application is a particularly stringent measure.

This approach could be interpreted in several ways: 1. A Mechanism to Test Bona Fides: The condition acts as a filter. If the accused are willing and able to deposit such a substantial sum, it may demonstrate their financial standing and their commitment to facing the legal process in India, potentially assuaging fears of them absconding. 2. Securing the Subject Matter of the Dispute: It effectively creates a security or lien over the disputed funds, ensuring that if the complainant ultimately succeeds, there is a corpus available for recovery. This is particularly relevant in financial fraud cases where asset dissipation by the accused is a major concern. 3. A Deterrent: Such orders could serve as a deterrent for individuals accused in high-value financial crimes from seeking frequent or non-essential foreign travel, thereby prioritizing the progression of the domestic legal proceedings.

The bench has adjourned the hearing until October 14, providing the couple time to consider their next steps. Their decision—whether to challenge the conditionality of the order or comply by depositing the ₹60 crore—will be closely watched by the legal community. This case is poised to become a significant reference point in future litigation involving high-net-worth individuals facing financial crime allegations and seeking to travel abroad during the pendency of an investigation.