Rajasthan HC denies bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and wife Shwetambari in ₹30 cr Udaipur fraud case. Court sees deliberate fund diversion beyond contract breach, per Justice Sameer Jain. Arrested in Mumbai, prior bail rejected. Police probe continues. Complainant Dr. Ajay Murdia alleges ₹30-40 cr loss on unmade films.

Filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt failed to secure bail from the Rajasthan High Court over a Udaipur fraud complaint. Detained under judicial custody, they urged the dismissal of the FIR alongside temporary freedom, yet the judges rejected the request, greenlighting further police inquiries. The court’s decision was made on Monday. The order notes that allegations against the Bhatts and other accused go beyond a simple contract issue, indicating, “deliberate diversion and misappropriation of funds.” Justice Sameer Jain stated that the case seems to involve dishonesty and lack of transparency, not just a contract breach.According to PTI, “The allegations are not confined merely to non-performance of a contract; they involve deliberate diversion of funds, lack of transparency, and elements of dishonesty. The preliminary inquiry has revealed evidence of fake invoices and the circulation of funds.”

Bhatt’s lawyers argued the matter is purely civil, stemming from a deal to produce four films, and thus shouldn’t lead to criminal charges. They claimed Mumbai, not Udaipur, is the right place to settle such contract disputes. The FIR was filed by Udaipur businessman Dr. Ajay Murdia, who says he lost Rs 30-40 crores meant for film production, including a biopic on his wife, after payments were made but no projects happened, with large sums diverted to unrelated vendors and parties.In early December last year, Mumbai authorities nabbed Bhatt and his wife before presenting them in Udaipur court. Their prior plea for anticipatory bail got shot down by the Bombay High Court. As the Rajasthan High Court now stays out of quashing the FIR or approving bail, cops will carry on their standard investigation into the claims.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.