Big Relief to Vikram Bhatt, Wife as Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹30 Crore Fraud Case

The Supreme Court today granted interim bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, his wife Shwetambari V Bhatt, in a case pertaining to nearly ₹30 crore in alleged fraud.

Bhatt and his wife had approached the top court after the Rajasthan High Court on January 31, 2026 had refused them any relief. Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani's bench had emphasised it would not be appropriate to grant bail at this juncture.

Mumbai film producer Vikram Bhatt had entered into an agreement with complainant Dr. Ajay Murdia for the production of four films for ₹47 crores. Indira Entertainment LLP was formed and from the complainant, in various phases, an amount exceeding ₹42.70 crores was got paid in the names of vendors. In reality, only one film was released; the second was left incomplete; the third was only about 25% completed; and shooting of the fourth has not commenced till date.

Vikram Bhatt, Shwetambari Bhatt and others are thus accused of criminal conspiracy, through fake bills, fake vouchers, fake payments and in collusion with vendors, fraudulently and illegally misappropriating about ₹30 crores from the complainant’s firm Indira Entertainment.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Bhatt and his wife before a CJI Surya Kant led bench today. While issuing notice in the SLP filed before it, the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi told the complainant, "You cannot use these cases to recover money..".

Bhatt and the others had filed bail application before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur against the impugned orders passed by the subordinate court, seeking grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in connection with First Information Report registered at Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Before the High Court it was argued that Vikram and Shwetambari Bhatt had been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that a term sheet was executed between both parties and the transaction was commercial in nature; a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour.

It was further submitted that two films had been completed by Bhatt and the work of the remaining two films was stopped only on the basis of statements made by the complainant. The entire alleged scam was stated to have been committed by the complainant’s accountant Rakesh Panigrahi, regarding which an FIR was lodged at Versova Police Station, Mumbai, by Bhatt.

High Court was further told that as per the agreement, the money received as return upon release of two films was to be invested in the production of the next two films; however, due to the first film becoming a flop and no return being received, the production work of the subsequent films stopped.

While denying bail, the High Court had noted that Bhatt and his wife got money transferred from the complainant by preparing different bills in the names of various firms and did not use the money for the original purpose; rather, by routing it through other accounts, transferred substantial amounts into their own and their family members’ accounts.

High court had further noted in its order that important investigation was still pending.

Case Title: SHWETAMBRI V BHATT vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: February 13, 2026