Actress, husband & 3 others get pre-arrest bail in cheating case

THANE: The district sessions court granted anticipatory bail to actor Shilpa Shetty, her husband Raj Kundra and three others in an alleged Rs 24 lakh cheating case.
The district judge, Sangeeta Khalipe, on Saturday imposed certain conditions on the five accused—Shetty, Kundra, Darshit Shah, Vedant Bali and Uday Kothari—who were part of a business firm that allegedly duped a businessman of Rs 24 lakh.The judge ordered that in the event of the arrest, they be released on a bond/surety of Rs 1 lakh each, directed them not leave the jurisdiction of the court or the city without prior permission of the court, and directed them to cooperate with the police in the probe. The court also directed the applicants not to intimidate, threaten the complainants, said prosecutor Vinit Kulkarni.
Kulkarni vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and urged the court not to grant them bail. “They are influential persons and may jump bail,” he pointed out. “Celebrity or no celebrity each and every alleged accused before the court should get the same treatment.”
On the threatening charge against Kundra, Aniket Nikam, counsel for the couple, said it was just a misunderstanding as his client had filed a defamation case against the complainant and had asked him to keep Rs 100 ready. There was no intent to threaten the complainant, claimed Nikam. “Even then, we are ready to tender an apology,” he added. and asked Shah to offer apologize to the complainant, which he did.
Nikam argued that provisions of IPC Section 420 were not applicable in this case as there was no intention to cheat the complainant. He also cited more than half a dozen Supreme Court rulings to substantiate his argument for pre-arrest bail. Nikam informed the court that the applicant’s company had already made a payment of over Rs 1 crore from time to time. The amount pending was only Rs 24 lakh.
He also stated that the complainant, in fact, owed the applicant Rs 25 lakh by way of compensation owing to delayed delivery among other reasons. Their custodial interrogation was not required in this case as it was nothing but a business transaction and there no criminal case made out prima facie, Nikam argued.