Shetty and Kundra Withdraw Travel Plea Amidst Court Scrutiny on LOC

Mumbai, India – In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle against actor Shilpa Shetty and businessman Raj Kundra, the couple has withdrawn their interim application before the Bombay High Court seeking permission to travel abroad. The withdrawal on Thursday came after a planned international appearance for Shetty fell through, concluding a series of contentious hearings where the court imposed stringent conditions and raised probing questions about the nature of their proposed travel and their cooperation with an ongoing investigation.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, allowed the withdrawal while scheduling the main writ petition, which challenges the validity of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against them, for a hearing on November 17. This case, centered on allegations of a ₹60 crore fraud, highlights the delicate balance between an individual's right to travel and the state's interest in securing the presence of an accused during a criminal investigation.

Background of the Dispute and the LOC

The legal proceedings stem from a cheating complaint filed by businessman Deepak Kothari. He alleges that between 2015 and 2023, he was induced to invest approximately ₹60 crore into Shetty and Kundra’s company, Best Deal TV Pvt Ltd. The complaint claims these funds were not used for business operations as promised but were instead diverted for the couple's personal benefit.

Following the complaint, the Mumbai Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) initiated an investigation and, at its behest, an LOC was issued against both Shetty and Kundra. An LOC is a coercive measure used by law enforcement agencies to prevent individuals involved in criminal cases from leaving the country, ensuring their availability for investigation and trial.

The couple subsequently filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3098 of 2023) challenging the legal basis and necessity of the LOC. As an interim measure, they sought the court's permission to travel abroad for professional commitments and personal leisure between October and January 2026.

Judicial Scrutiny and Stringent Pre-Conditions

The couple's plea for interim relief met with rigorous examination from the High Court. Over several hearings, the bench expressed strong reservations about granting unfettered travel permissions while a serious financial investigation was underway.

In a notable move, the Court had previously stipulated that it would only consider their travel request if they were willing to deposit ₹60 crore—the entire amount central to the alleged fraud. This pre-condition, aimed at securing the complainant's interest, underscores a judicial trend of imposing stringent financial conditions in high-value economic offence cases before granting discretionary relief. The Court had already rejected a specific request from the couple to travel to Phuket, remarking that such "leisure" trips were inappropriate amidst the ongoing proceedings.

Furthermore, the bench critically analyzed the justification for a proposed "business trip" to the United States. It observed that Shetty had failed to produce any formal documentation, such as an engagement letter or a signed agreement, to substantiate the professional nature of the trip. Her counsel, Niranjan Mundargi, had argued that an agreement could not be finalized without the court's travel permission, a cyclical argument that appeared not to persuade the bench.

A Cancelled Event and a Strategic Withdrawal

The immediate catalyst for the withdrawal of the application was the cancellation of Shetty's planned appearance with American influencer "Mr Beast." Advocate Mundargi informed the court, “She was the only Indian actor invited to participate in the programme with Mr Beast, but following recent reports and the surrounding commentary, the organisers have now cancelled the plan.”

This development effectively rendered the current travel application moot. Mundargi stated that his clients were not pressing the application at this stage and would file a fresh plea with complete particulars for any future travel plans. The couple still intends to seek permission for a trip to Dubai and London between December 20, 2025, and January 6, 2026, to visit Kundra's parents.

Procedural Skirmishes and the Role of the Complainant

The hearings were not without procedural drama. Counsel for the complainant, advocates Yusuf Iqbal and Zain Shroff, actively intervened, raising an objection to an affidavit filed by Shetty on October 14. They alleged that the affidavit was not properly notarised and that the signature was not attested in accordance with legal requirements. While Mundargi stated he had no immediate instructions on the matter, the bench appeared disinclined to delve into the issue at this stage, indicating it would consider the formal intervention application later.

This highlights the increasing role of complainants or victims as interveners in writ proceedings, where they actively supplement the state's arguments to oppose relief sought by the accused.

The Court's Suggestion: A Path to Resolution?

In a striking remark during an earlier hearing, the bench had openly questioned the couple's litigation strategy, stating, “Why don’t you turn approver?” This judicial observation, though informal, is significant. It hints at a potential path forward for one of the accused—cooperation with the EOW in exchange for potential leniency—and reflects the court's apparent view on the seriousness of the investigation. Such comments from the bench often serve to signal the court's perspective on the merits and encourage parties to consider alternative resolutions.

Legal Implications and What Lies Ahead

The withdrawal of the interim plea shifts the focus squarely onto the main writ petition scheduled for November 17. The core legal battle will now revolve around the validity of the LOC itself. Shetty and Kundra's counsel will likely argue that the LOC is a disproportionate measure, that the couple has cooperated with the investigation, has deep roots in the community, and is not a flight risk. The EOW, supported by the complainant, will counter that the gravity of the alleged financial crime and the need for their continued presence for a thorough investigation justify the travel restriction.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a crucial study in the jurisprudence surrounding LOCs and interim relief in economic offence cases. It demonstrates that courts are increasingly unwilling to grant travel permission without: 1. Substantial Justification: A clear, documented, and non-frivolous reason for travel. 2. Financial Security: A willingness to deposit amounts commensurate with the alleged fraud to safeguard potential claims. 3. Demonstrated Cooperation: A consistent record of cooperation with the investigating agency.

The High Court's handling of the matter reflects a cautious and security-oriented approach, prioritizing the integrity of the investigation over the petitioners' right to personal liberty and movement, at least at this preliminary stage. The final hearing on the LOC will be a determinative moment for the couple, setting the boundaries of their freedom of movement for the foreseeable future.