Vikram Bhatt And Wife Sent To Judicial Custody In Film Fraud Case

Vikram Bhatt And Wife Sent To Judicial Custody In ₹30-Crore Film Fraud Case

A stalled biographical film project and disputed financial commitments have brought filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari under sustained legal scrutiny, after a court denied them bail and ordered their transfer to judicial custody in connection with an alleged ₹30-crore fraud case.

The investigation, spanning Mumbai and Udaipur, centres on a proposed film that authorities say never progressed beyond planning documents and assurances. According to the police case, the project was presented as a high-return venture, with profit projections used to secure large-scale investment.

The complaint was filed by Udaipur-based businessman Dr. Ajay Murdia, founder of the Indira Group of Companies, who told investigators that he was convinced to invest substantial funds in a biopic based on the life of his late wife. Officials examining the matter have indicated that the dispute goes beyond a creative collaboration that failed to materialise, and instead raises questions about whether the film proposal itself was used as a means to obtain money through misrepresentation.

As per details outlined in the FIR, investigators allege that more than ₹30 crore was diverted through claims related to production costs, timelines and expected commercial returns. The probe has also flagged the alleged generation of fabricated bills to create the appearance of legitimate expenditure linked to the film project.

The FIR was registered on November 17 at Bhopalpura police station in Udaipur, naming Vikram Bhatt, his wife, and six others on charges related to cheating and financial deception. Police officials say the investigation is focused on tracking the flow of funds, identifying beneficiaries and determining whether there was coordinated intent to mislead the complainant. While Bhatt’s public profile has intensified attention on the case, investigators have stressed that the inquiry is evidence-driven and still underway.

Bhatt and Shwetambari were arrested in Mumbai on December 7 and subsequently brought to Udaipur for questioning. They were produced before a local court the following day and placed in police custody for a week to allow investigators to examine financial records and transaction-related documents connected to the film proposal.

After the police remand period ended, the defence sought interim bail on medical grounds, arguing that temporary relief was required for treatment. On Tuesday, the court rejected the plea and ordered that both accused be sent to judicial custody at the Central Jail in Udaipur. The development was confirmed by Deputy Superintendent of Police Suryaveer Singh, who said the legal process would continue as investigators complete their examination of financial and digital evidence.

Legal observers note that while disagreements over film financing are not uncommon in the entertainment industry, they are typically addressed through civil proceedings. The present case stands apart due to the scale of the alleged financial irregularities and the invocation of criminal charges, which place the matter squarely within the criminal justice framework.

Financial analysts say cases like this underline the importance of transparent structuring and documented accountability in high-value projects. Whether investors are evaluating ventures within India or exploring opportunities such as business setup in Dubai through regulated frameworks, clarity in financial commitments and compliance mechanisms is essential to mitigate risk.

Experts also point out that disputes involving large sums often reveal gaps in financial oversight. Robust auditing services in India and disciplined record maintenance through professional bookkeeping services in India are increasingly seen as safeguards against disputes escalating into criminal allegations.

For now, the case remains with the courts, as investigators continue to reconstruct the financial trail behind a film project that, according to the complainant, remained confined to proposals rather than production.