Supreme Court grants regular bail to Vikram Bhatt and Shwetambari Bhatt; Rs 44.7 crore dispute referred to mediation

JAIPUR: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted regular bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and his wife, Shwetambari Bhatt, in connection with a criminal case involving alleged financial irregularities amounting to approximately Rs 44.7 crore.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order while hearing a special leave petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s December order rejecting bail to the couple.

The case arises out of an FIR registered at Police Station Bhupalpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan, alleging offences of cheating, forgery and diversion of funds in relation to film production agreements executed through LLP entities for proposed film projects. The prosecution claims that the dispute involves financial transactions running into ₹44.7 crore.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court recorded the complainant’s statement expressing willingness to explore an amicable settlement of the dispute.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the complainant, submitted that there was no objection to the accused being released on bail to facilitate settlement talks. While the complainant had earlier indicated no objection to interim bail, the Court, taking note of the overall circumstances, granted regular bail to both accused.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner-accused, informed the Court that both sides were keen to resolve the dispute. He further submitted that after Shwetambari Bhatt was granted interim bail earlier, the complainant had communicated via email seeking completion of contractual obligations relating to film production.

Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, representing the State of Rajasthan, opposed the bail plea, contending that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that most witnesses were based in Mumbai, raising concerns about possible influence on the probe.

Rejecting the State’s objections, the bench observed that since both parties had expressed a clear intent to settle their dispute, they should be permitted to pursue mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

The Court, however, clarified that no stay has been granted on the ongoing investigation and that the investigating agency is free to proceed in accordance with law. The criminal probe will continue independently while the parties attempt an amicable resolution through mediation.