Orissa High Court Allows Shrikant Mohta To Travel To Thailand For Film Production, Directs Trial Court To Release His Passport

Senior Advocate Milan Kanungo, representing Mohta, submitted that he has carved out a niche for himself in the film industry in eastern India and has produced multiple films and serials during his professional career. The court was further told that despite all difficulties he has decided to produce a film named ‘Abar Bibaho Abhiyan’ and In this connection, the production has entered into a service provider agreement with a company for the shooting in Thailand.

It was also submitted that the petitioner has roots in the society and he is unlikely to abscond from the limits of the court below and hence permission should be granted to him to travel abroad. The petitioner undertook to surrender before the court below after he returns from Thailand.

Contentions of CBI

Special Counsel for the CBI, Sarthak Nayak submitted that the petitioner was arraigned as an accused in the 3rd Supplementary chargesheet filed on 23rd May, 2019 as the investigation disclosed that he as the Director of SVF Entertainment Private Limited entered into an agreement with the Rose Valley Group of Companies for the purpose of transferring the satellite television broadcasting rights at a consideration of Rs. 25 crores.

Nayak alleged that the purpose of transmission of films was to attract more TRP for the channel ‘Rupashi Bangla’ of M/s. BVC to impress upon the depositors for more investment. Mohta had the knowledge about the illegal money collection and activities of Rose Valley Group, the CBI counsel claimed.

Nayak also contended that as Mohta was released on bail by the Supreme Court on medical grounds, any permission granted to him to leave the country would not be proper as there is a flight risk.

Court’s Observations

The bench said that the lower court declined to grant the permission since no evidence was produced to show that the Mohta is required to travel for any such film shooting, except a poster of the proposed film. The lower court also was of the view that if the passport is released in favour of the petitioner, he might leave the country.

However, Justice Pattanaik took note of a submission made by Mohta's counsel that the travel is proposed and once the passport is released, the schedule of the programme would be finalized.

“No doubt the allegations against the petitioner is that he was in a way involved which is alleged to be with the requisite knowledge about the source of fund from chit fund business of the Rose Valley Group of Companies. It is a matter of record that the parties had been in business transaction vis-a-vis satellite television broadcasting rights. But then, the petitioner is a producer and runs a business in the production of films, etc. and has been in such activities for quite some time. It is claimed that an agreement has been entered into by the production house of the petitioner with Indo Bangkok Films Company Limited.”

The court also observed that undeniably, the petitioner has the freedom to pursue his professional career in the film production. However, it also noted that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India are non-absolute.

"In the instant case, no doubt restrictions have been imposed against the petitioner with conditions but then at present, permission is sought for by him for release of passport to travel abroad for the reason stated. The petitioner was no doubt granted bail on medical ground. As earlier mentioned, it is not alleged at any point of time that the petitioner after release on bail ever misutilised the liberty," it added.

Case Title: Shrikant Mohta v. Republic of India (CBI)

Case No.: CRLMC No. 3325 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 6^th January 2023

Coram: R.K. Pattanaik, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Millan Kanungo, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dipankar Acharya, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Counsel for CBI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 7