38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
CelebStreet

Filmmaker Rajkumar Santoshi Gets Extension to Deposit Balance Amount in Cheque Bounce Cases; Allowed to Travel Abroad [Read Order]

By Samriddhi Ojha      31 December, 2025 05:45 PM      0 Comments
Filmmaker Rajkumar Santoshi Gets Extension to Deposit Balance Amount in Cheque Bounce Cases Allowed to Travel Abroad

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court, on Tuesday, December 30, 2025, granted significant relief to filmmaker Rajkumar Santoshi by extending the deadline for depositing the balance amount as part of the conditions for the suspension of his sentence in a series of cheque bounce cases. Simultaneously, the Court temporarily suspended a condition restricting him from leaving India, allowing him to travel abroad for promotional events related to his upcoming film, Lahore 1947.

The matter was heard by Justice P. M. Raval, who passed orders on multiple Criminal Miscellaneous Applications seeking modification or deletion of conditions in connection with the Criminal Revision Applications.

In the first set of applications (Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2025 in all corresponding Criminal Revision Applications), Mr. Santoshi sought an extension of eight weeks to deposit the remaining amount of ₹35 lakhs out of the total ₹41,50,000/- he was initially directed to deposit by December 31, 2025. The original condition for suspension of sentence, passed on October 30, 2025, by a coordinate Bench, required him to deposit ₹41,50,000/- on or before November 30, 2025, and the balance amount of ₹41,50,000/- on or before December 31, 2025.

Learned advocate Mr. Vyas, appearing for the original complainant, vehemently opposed the application, stating that “the undertaking given by the applicant himself has not been followed in its true spirit.” However, the Court took a lenient view, observing:

“Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the averments made in the applications, as well as the fact that a substantial amount has already been paid by the applicant and that, in all the group matters, a total amount of ₹35 lakh only remains to be deposited before the Registry of this Court, the interest of justice would be served if time is extended up to 31.01.2026.”

The Bench made it clear that “no further extension shall be granted under any circumstances for depositing the balance amount as stated by the applicant in his undertaking, which has been extended by this Court by the present order.”

In the second set of applications (Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2025 in all corresponding Criminal Revision Applications), the filmmaker sought suspension of the condition restraining him from leaving India without prior permission of the Court. Learned advocate Mr. Raju submitted that “the applicant is required to travel abroad for promotional events of the upcoming movie ‘Lahore 1947’.” After perusing the travel tickets, which indicated that the applicant would be departing on December 30, 2025, and returning on January 4, 2026, at midnight, the Court granted the permission.

The order stated:

“Under the circumstances, when a substantial amount of the cheques in question has been deposited, it would be in the interest of justice that the aforesaid condition is suspended for the time being, and the applicant be allowed to leave India from 30.12.2025 and shall return to India on or before 05.01.2026 at 00:00 hours.”

Case Details:

Case Numbers: R/Criminal Revision Application Nos. 2003 of 2025 to 2012 of 2025 and R/Criminal Revision Application No. 2026 of 2025 (with corresponding Criminal Miscellaneous Applications)

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice P. M. Raval

Date of Order: 30.12.2025

Petitioner (Applicant): Rajkumar Santoshi

Respondents: State of Gujarat & Anr.

Advocates for the Petitioner: Ms. Jhanvi R. Pandya, Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla, and Mr. Bhadrish Raju

Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Original Complainant): Mr. Ruchit J. Vyas

Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (State of Gujarat): Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, APP

[Read Order]



Share this article:

About:

Samriddhi is a legal scholar currently pursuing her LL.M. in Constitutional Law at the National Law ...Read more



Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Gujarat High Court References 'Manusmriti' to Discuss Early Marriage and Abortion of Minor's Pregnancy Gujarat High Court References 'Manusmriti' to Discuss Early Marriage and Abortion of Minor's Pregnancy

The Gujarat High Court cited the Manusmriti to emphasize early marriages' negative impact and stressed consulting medical experts on abortion cases.

Gujarat High Court Denies Bail to Man for Obscene Comments on PM and Late Mother [Read Order] Gujarat High Court Denies Bail to Man for Obscene Comments on PM and Late Mother [Read Order]

The Gujarat High Court denies bail to a man accused of posting obscene comments about the Prime Minister and his late mother on Facebook. Learn about the court's reasoning behind the decision, the impact of such actions on society, and the potential consequences of allowing such individuals to roam freely.

Plea for Abortion: Gujarat High Court Explores Possibility of Compromise Between Rape Survivor and Accused Plea for Abortion: Gujarat High Court Explores Possibility of Compromise Between Rape Survivor and Accused

The Gujarat High Court judge explores the possibility of a compromise between a minor rape survivor and the accused while considering a plea for the abortion of her seven-month-old fetus. Discover the court's perspective and the legal proceedings involved in this sensitive case.

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Teesta Setalvad's Bail Plea in 2002 Riots Fabricating Evidence Case Gujarat High Court Dismisses Teesta Setalvad's Bail Plea in 2002 Riots Fabricating Evidence Case

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed activist Teesta Setalvad's bail plea in a case related to fabricating evidence in the 2002 riots cases. The court cited evidence of influencing witnesses and attempting to disrupt a democratically elected government. Setalvad has been directed to surrender immediately.

TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

sc-sets-aside-ngt-order-for-temple-demolition-holds-tribunal-has-no-jurisdiction-over-encroachments-under-municipal-laws
Trending Judiciary
SC Sets Aside NGT Order for Temple Demolition; Holds Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction Over Encroachments Under Municipal Laws [Read Order]

Supreme Court sets aside NGT order to demolish Ghaziabad temple, ruling tribunal lacks jurisdiction over encroachments under municipal laws.

18 March, 2026 10:41 AM
meghalaya-hc-quashes-ghadc-order-making-st-certificate-mandatory-for-election-nominations
Trending Judiciary
Meghalaya HC Quashes GHADC Order Making ST Certificate Mandatory for Election Nominations [Read Order]

Meghalaya HC quashes GHADC notification mandating ST certificate for poll nominations, cites lack of Governor approval and due process.

18 March, 2026 03:51 PM
ignorance-of-law-no-defence-in-child-marriage-cases-subsequent-marital-harmony-cannot-erase-criminal-liability-karnataka-hc
Trending Judiciary
Ignorance of Law No Defence in Child Marriage Cases; Subsequent Marital Harmony Cannot Erase Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Karnataka HC rules ignorance of law no defence in child marriage cases; says later marital harmony cannot erase criminal liability under law.

18 March, 2026 04:41 PM
section-319-crpc-stage-is-not-a-mini-trial-trial-courts-cannot-apply-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard-sc
Trending Judiciary
Section 319 CrPC Stage Is Not a Mini Trial; Trial Courts Cannot Apply ‘Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Standard: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules Section 319 CrPC stage is not a mini trial; courts cannot apply proof beyond reasonable doubt while summoning additional accused.

18 March, 2026 04:51 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email