The Supreme Court has granted regular bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt in a multi-crore cheating case linked to a proposed biopic project. The Court also directed the parties to explore settlement through mediation.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order that had denied bail to the Bhatts.
Background of the Dispute
The case arises from a complaint filed by Ajay Murdia, owner of Indira IVF. He alleged that Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt induced him to invest over ₹30 crore in a biopic of his late wife. According to the complaint, they promised high returns, which did not materialise.
Rajasthan Police arrested the Bhatts from Mumbai in December last year. Authorities lodged them in Jodhpur Central Jail. Earlier, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Shwetambari Bhatt.
High Court Order Overturned
The Rajasthan High Court had refused to grant bail. The Supreme Court, however, set aside that order and granted regular bail.
The Bench observed that the dispute essentially stemmed from a commercial transaction, although the FIR invoked allegations of cheating.
The Court stated:
“It seems to us that dispute essentially pertains to a commercial transaction, though the ingredients of committing offence of cheating etc have been expressly mentioned in the FIR. Be that as it may, it may be appropriate for the parties to resolve the disputes through mediation. The regular bail has been granted with the expectation that the appellants will try and make efforts for the amicable resolution of the dispute.”
Mediation Direction
The Court directed both sides to appear before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of resolving the payment dispute.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the Bhatts. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh represented Ajay Murdia.
Singh did not oppose the grant of bail for the purpose of mediation. However, he informed the Court that another FIR alleging cheating had been registered against Vikram Bhatt in Mumbai.
Submissions by Counsel
Vikas Singh submitted that Bhatt’s company faced financial difficulties. He alleged that Bhatt had raised funds based on his past reputation and routed the money into a company that was undergoing liquidation.
In response, Siddharth Dave argued that the funds were being used to complete films under production. He stated that the agreement covered four films. Two films had already been completed, and the third was approximately 70% complete. He submitted that continued custody would prevent completion of the projects.
Conclusion
While granting regular bail, the Supreme Court expressed its expectation that the parties would make sincere efforts to settle the dispute through mediation.
The case is titled Shwetambari Bhatt and another v. State of Rajasthan.
