In a major development regarding an alleged case of cheating and investment fraud, the Bombay High Court has ordered Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her businessman husband Raj Kundra to deposit ₹60 crore or furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount for the provisional lifting of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the couple. The order, pronounced early this week, has received extensive media publicity, as the couple faces continued investigations into allegations that they were part of a multi-crore business dispute which escalated into criminal complaints.
The LOC was initially issued following complaints that Kundra, aided by a network of associates, convinced them to invest large sums in a firm which promised returns that it never paid. Though Shetty has always maintained that she was not directly involved in the concerned business dealings, her name cropped up in the complaint since she was shown as a director in some of the associated companies during the initial stages of the venture. The two have contended that the allegations are exaggerated and legally flawed, and the LOC is an unwarranted restriction on their movement, especially since they have cooperated with investigating authorities.
During the hearing, the couple’s counsel argued that the LOC had been causing them immense hassle, particularly when travelling abroad for work commitments. Their lawyer claimed there was no indication either of them tried to flee from the law-enforcing agencies. He pointed out that Kundra has been appearing in front of the investigating agencies whenever he was called upon. Moreover, they claimed that the high-profile status of the couple rules out their fleeing away from the investigation. “A Look Out Circular is issued for those who are flight risks, there is no reason, intention, or ability for my clients to flee,” their lawyer said.
The prosecution, however, insisted that the magnitude of the alleged fraud in terms of money and the number of complainants was sufficient to justify the LOC. They argued that a fraud regarding investments cumulatively higher than ₹60 crore was committed, and the complainants apprehend that unless adequate safeguards are provided, the accused would frequently travel abroad, making the investigation a difficult task. They insisted that till the financial claims are sorted out, the LOC should not be withdrawn.
After hearing the arguments of both sides, the bench held that the LOC could be stayed only if the couple deposited ₹60 crore—either in one go or in the form of a credible bank guarantee—to protect the interests of the complainants, while providing temporary relief to the couple. It added that the deposit amount should not be treated as an admission of liability but as a precautionary measure to ensure funds equivalent to the disputed amount are kept liquid pending further litigation.
The ruling has elicited different opinions from legal experts. Some believe the High Court has been pragmatic in balancing the rights of the accused with those of the complainants. According to a senior criminal lawyer, such conditions have been, though infrequently resorted to, imposed when monetary disputes coincide with criminal complaints. “It is a measure against prejudicing either party,” he said. “The accused are allowed to travel, but the claims of complainants are secured.”
Others feel that this condition seems excessively stringent in the absence of critical findings from the investigation. They warn, too, that requiring such an unconscionably high deposit before trial could open the door to a precedent that might encumber people with allegedly non-final charges. However, the courts usually enjoy wide latitude on matters of money involved in criminal charges, especially when highly placed personalities are embroiled.
For Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra, the order represents both a partial reprieve and a big headache. The stay on the LOC would remove onerous travel restrictions, but arranging a deposit or guarantee of ₹60 crore is not a small task for anyone, however personally well-off. People near the celebrity couple claim that they might seek legal intervention-attempting appeal against parts of the order or even seeking phased compliance. Given the nature of this case, it might take several months to conclude, as investigators are still going through financial records, contracts, digital storage, and statements from both sides. Meanwhile, the couple insists that they are the victims of a soured business partnership and are confident that the truth will come out as the case unfolds. There has been no determination of the truthfulness of the allegations so far, and the High Court’s move was little more than an interim order. But scrutiny of the couple has intensified in their fight through a legal system that weaves celebrity, money, and public attention in ways routine in this city.
