Bombay High Court Orders Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra To Deposit Rs 60 Crore

The Bombay High Court has delivered a firm message to Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, directing them to deposit ₹60 crore or furnish a matching continuous bank guarantee if they wish to have the Lookout Circular (LOC) against them lifted. This legal order intensifies an already high-profile case and affects the couple’s immediate travel plans.

An LOC is a legal instrument used by Indian authorities to prevent individuals from leaving the country while an investigation or prosecution is ongoing. In this instance, Shetty and Kundra have been seeking relief from travel restrictions imposed amid an Economic Offences Wing (EOW) probe into an alleged ₹60 crore fraud case related to their now-defunct company, Best Deal TV Private Limited. A businessman has accused the couple of misusing invested funds for personal expenses rather than legitimate business purposes.

During the court hearing, the couple’s legal team argued that they should be permitted to travel, particularly to the United Kingdom, where Kundra’s elderly father reportedly requires care due to deteriorating health. Lawyers urged the bench to consider either partial deposit options or alternative guarantees, highlighting the ostensibly urgent medical circumstances.

However, the court remained resolute. A division bench of justices emphasized that only the full amount either in cash or through a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank would be sufficient to suspend the LOC. Until such a deposit is made, the LOC will remain in effect, and travel restrictions will stand.

This requirement places considerable financial pressure on the couple, who now face the choice of arranging a substantial sum under strict legal timelines or continuing to defend their case with the LOC firmly in place. The next hearing has been scheduled to monitor compliance and review any further legal submissions.

For Shetty and Kundra, the order represents a critical juncture. Beyond immediate travel ambitions, it reflects how courts are balancing individual requests with procedural fairness and the integrity of ongoing financial crime investigations. Should they comply and secure the LOC’s withdrawal, it might free them to manage personal obligations abroad. If not, they will remain tethered to India by law until the underlying case proceeds further.

Public commentary on the matter has been intense, with supporters emphasizing the couple’s personal hardships and critics underscoring the seriousness of fraud allegations. Whatever unfolds next, this legal episode is likely to stay in the spotlight as the case develops.