Udaipur Court Denies Bail to Vikram Bhatt in ₹30 Crore Fraud Case

Udaipur Court Denies Bail to Vikram Bhatt and Wife in ₹30 Crore Fraud Case

A Udaipur court on Friday rejected the bail plea of Bollywood film director Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt in a ₹30 crore fraud case, citing concerns that their release could influence witnesses and hamper the ongoing investigation. The court also noted that the case falls under Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a non-bailable offence, strengthening the grounds for denial of relief.

The matter was heard over two days, with arguments from both the prosecution and the defence concluding on Thursday. The court reserved its order and delivered the decision on Friday evening. Following the ruling, Bhatt’s counsel said a fresh bail application would be moved before the sessions court.

The case stems from allegations raised by Dr. Ajay Murdia, owner of Rajasthan-based Indira Group of Companies. According to the complaint, a ₹42 crore agreement was signed with Bhatt for film production, following which funds amounting to nearly ₹30 crore were allegedly misappropriated. An FIR was registered in Udaipur on November 17 against Bhatt and seven others.

During the investigation, Udaipur police arrested co-producer Mahboob Ansari and a person identified as a fake vendor, Sandeep, from Mumbai. On December 7, Bhatt and his wife were arrested from their Mumbai residence and later produced before a Udaipur court on December 9, where they were remanded to police custody.

The case has also drawn the attention of the Rajasthan High Court. On the day of the remand, the Jodhpur bench heard a petition challenging Bhatt’s arrest and directed senior police officials, including the Inspector General and Superintendent of Police, to appear before it over allegations of a hurried arrest. The proceedings have remained under sustained public and media scrutiny due to the profile of the accused and the size of the alleged financial loss.

In rejecting the bail plea, the court placed particular emphasis on the risk to witnesses and the integrity of the investigation. The order underscored the judiciary’s view that premature release of the accused could obstruct the process of collecting evidence and examining financial trails linked to the case.

Bhatt’s legal team is expected to file a fresh bail plea before the sessions court, while investigators continue to examine contracts, vendor arrangements and money flows connected to the film project. Authorities are also reviewing the roles of other individuals named during the probe.

Legal observers note that cases involving large sums and complex financial arrangements often hinge on documentary evidence and transaction records. Strong financial scrutiny, including independent auditing services in India and clear transaction logs maintained through disciplined bookkeeping services in India, can play a crucial role in establishing accountability in such disputes.

For now, the court’s decision signals a strict approach, with witness protection and investigation integrity taking precedence as the high-profile case moves into its next legal phase.