Thane court grants anticipatory bail to Shilpa Shetty, Kundra, three others

MUMBAI: A Thane Sessions court on Tuesday granted interim protection against arrest to actress Shilpa Shetty, her husband Raj Kundra and three others in a case of alleged cheating and breach of trust filed against them in Bhiwandi. Additional sessions judge Sangeeta Khalipe granted them interim anticipatory bail on bonds of Rs 50,000 each.
The case registered against on April 26, 2017 by a vendor of their company Best Deal TV (BDTV), a trading platform, alleged that he was duped of Rs 24 lakh.The accused who also moved court along with Shetty and were granted protection include Darshit Shah, Vedant Bali and Uday Kothari, all former directors of the company.
Advocates Aniket Nikam and Hiren Kamod appearing for Shetty and others argued that that the complainant and Best Deal TV PVT LTD of which the accused were directors were in a business relationship for more than a year. “BDTV has made payment of more than Rs 1 crore to the complainant and in such a situation it could not be said that the accused had intention to cheat from the inception which is the requirement of section 420, of Indian Penal Code (IPC).’’ He also argued that the allegations made in the FIR prima facie reflect that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and elements of mens rea (guilty mind) is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
Ravi Bhalotia, proprieter of Bhalotia exports had alleged in an FIR before Kongaon police station that he had delivered bedsheets through BDTV but was yet to receive payment. BDTV is an e-commerce, tele-shopping and online retailing business for apparels, accessories, jewelleries, kitchen appliances, electrical appliances.
The public prosecutor Varsha Chandane opposed grant of any relief saying it was a “clear case of cheating." The intention to dupe by not making payment was evident as alleged in the FIR, she said adding that the accused “are influential people’’ and ought not to be given any pre-arrest bail.
Advocate Nikam cited several Supreme Court judgments to point out that in commercial disputes custodial interrogation is unwarranted.