After being detained by Rajasthan Police in relation to a fraud case, filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his spouse have been incarcerated for almost two months. The Rajasthan High Court struck a blow to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt on Saturday when it denied their requests for bail in a case involving adultery. Since their arrest in Mumbai on December 7 and subsequent transportation to Udaipur, the two have been detained.
Bail rejected for Vikram Bhatt’s wife
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani noted that it would not be acceptable to grant the accused bail at this time while rejecting their request.
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) had rejected their bail, claiming that more questioning of the accused, including the Bhatts, would be necessary for the case’s investigation. Additionally, the SPP stated that the applicants might sway witnesses if they are released on bond at this point.
What is the situation?
In December, Vikram Bhatt was taken into custody after Ajay Murdia, an Udaipur resident and founder of Indira IVF and Fertility Centre, filed a criminal breach of trust and cheating complaint against the filmmaker, his wife Shwetambari Bhatt, and others, claiming that money obtained for a movie project had been embezzled. According to the accusation, money totaling ₹30 crore was embezzled.
According to the lawsuit, the Bhatts obtained money transfers from the complainant by creating fictitious bills under different names. The money was supposed to be for making films for the complainant, but was reportedly placed into the accused’s own accounts and utilized by them.
Apart from Vikram and his wife, Udaipur-based Dinesh Kataria and Bhatt’s manager, Mehboob Ansari, were also arrested by the Rajasthan Police on December 7.
The legal team for Vikram Bhatt has refuted every accusation. Bhatt’s attorney Kamlesh Dave reportedly claimed that the police action was “based only on the FIR and not documents” (ANI).Each payment was made with both parties’ knowledge. Such phony or fraudulent bills did not exist. He has stated, “The agreement was made to make two films first and another two on rolling finance.”
The court had already denied Vikram Bhatt’s request to have the FIR quashed, arguing that the conflict was civil in character rather than criminal. However, the court stated that the police investigation will continue because the case allegedly involves financial embezzlement in addition to breach of trust.
FAQs: Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt Bail Rejection Case
1. Why were filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife arrested?
Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt were arrested by Rajasthan Police in December after a complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust involving ₹30 crore was filed against them.
2. Who filed the complaint against Vikram Bhatt?
The complaint was filed by Ajay Murdia, founder of Indira IVF and Fertility Centre, and a resident of Udaipur.
3. What are the allegations in the ₹30 crore fraud case?
The complainant alleges that funds meant for film production were diverted by the accused through fake bills created under different names and transferred into their personal accounts.
4. When were Vikram Bhatt and his wife arrested?
They were arrested in Mumbai on December 7 and later brought to Udaipur, where they have been in judicial custody for nearly two months.
5. Why did the Rajasthan High Court deny bail to Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt?
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani ruled that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate, as further investigation and questioning of the accused are still required.
6. What did the prosecution argue against granting bail?
The Special Public Prosecutor stated that releasing the accused could affect the investigation and that there was a possibility of influencing witnesses if bail were granted.
7. Who else was arrested in connection with this case?
Along with Vikram Bhatt and his wife, Udaipur-based Dinesh Kataria and Bhatt’s manager Mehboob Ansari were also arrested.
8. What is Vikram Bhatt’s legal defence?
Bhatt’s legal team has denied all allegations, stating that all payments were made with mutual consent and that there were no fake or fraudulent bills involved.
9. What did Bhatt’s lawyer say about the FIR?
Bhatt’s lawyer claimed that the police action was based solely on the FIR and not on documentary evidence, adding that the agreement involved producing multiple films on a rolling finance basis.
10. Has the court commented on the nature of the dispute?
The court earlier refused to quash the FIR, noting that while there may be civil aspects, the allegations involve financial embezzlement, justifying a criminal investigation.
