The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted interim bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt in connection with a fraud case alleging large-scale financial misappropriation. Earlier, their bail appeal was rejected twice. The matter is now slated for further hearing on February 19, 2026.The couple had spent over two months in judicial custody after being arrested on December 7, 2025. They were detained by the Rajasthan Police in Mumbai and subsequently taken to Udaipur following a complaint lodged by Dr. Ajay Murdia, founder of Indira IVF and Fertility Centre.
As per the FIR registered in Udaipur, Murdia accused Bhatt, his wife and others of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complaint alleged that nearly ₹30 crore, purportedly invested for film production ventures, was siphoned off into personal accounts instead of being utilised for the agreed projects.It was further claimed that fabricated invoices were generated under different names to enable the transfer of funds. According to the allegations, these documents were used to justify payments that were later diverted for purposes unrelated to the proposed films. Along with the Bhatts, Udaipur-based Dinesh Kataria and Bhatt’s manager Mehboob Ansari were also arrested on December 7 in connection with the case.The interim relief was granted by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which directed that the matter be listed for further proceedings later this month.Bhatt has consistently refuted the allegations. His lawyer, Kamlesh Dave, earlier challenged the basis of the police action. As quoted by ANI, he stated, “Every payment was made in the knowledge of both parties. There were no such fake or bogus bills. The agreement was done to make two films first and another two on rolling finance.”The defence has also maintained that the investigation was launched without a proper review of supporting documents, contending that the police acted “based only on the FIR and not documents”.Before the Supreme Court stepped in, the High Court had declined to quash the FIR, observing that the matter appeared to involve serious allegations of misappropriation rather than merely a contractual disagreement, and therefore warranted continued criminal investigation.With interim bail now in place, the legal battle will resume before the Supreme Court on February 19 as arguments continue over the substance and scope of the charges.
