The Rajasthan High Court on Saturday rejected the bail applications of filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case, as per media reports.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while denying relief, said the court was not inclined to release the accused during the ongoing investigation.
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed the bail pleas, submitting that the investigation was still underway and that the accused, including the Bhatts, were required for further interrogation.
The SPP also argued that releasing them on bail could lead to influencing of witnesses.
Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt have been in judicial custody since December 7, when they were arrested in Mumbai and brought to Udaipur by the Rajasthan Police.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Ajay Murdia, founder of Indira IVF and Fertility Centre and a resident of Udaipur, who accused the filmmaker, his wife and others of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complaint alleges that funds amounting to Rs 30 crore, taken in the name of film projects, were misappropriated.
According to the complaint, the Bhatts allegedly prepared fake bills under various names and got money transferred from the complainant. The funds, which were meant for making films for the complainant, were allegedly deposited into the accused’s own accounts and used by them.
Apart from Vikram Bhatt and his wife, Udaipur-based Dinesh Kataria and Bhatt’s manager Mehboob Ansari were also arrested on December 7 in connection with the case.
Vikram Bhatt’s legal team has denied the allegations. According to ANI, Bhatt’s lawyer Kamlesh Dave had claimed that the police action was taken “based only on the FIR and not documents”.
“Every payment was made in the knowledge of both parties. There were no such fake or bogus bills. The agreement was done to make two films first and another two on rolling finance,” he had said.
Earlier, the High Court had rejected Vikram Bhatt’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature. However, the court observed that since the case involved allegations of misappropriation of funds in addition to breach of trust, the police investigation would continue.