Vikram Bhatt fraud case: Police say evidence collected, filmmaker’s team didn’t fully cooperate

vikram bhatt detained

• Vikram Bhatt and wife face fraud probe over Rs 44.27 crore film investment
• Police say filmmaker's team did not fully cooperate with investigation
• Rajasthan High Court refused to quash FIR, citing prima facie evidence

Did our AI summary help?

Film director Vikram Bhatt and his wife Shwetambari Bhatt continue to face legal turmoil in an alleged fraud case involving funds meant for movie projects, with police confirming that key evidence has been gathered while also noting a lack of full cooperation from the filmmaker’s team during the probe.

The investigation stems from a complaint lodged on November 8, 2025, by Dr Ajay Murdia, founder of Indira IVF and Fertility Centre. Murdia alleged that Bhatt and his associates had convinced him to invest in multiple film ventures — initially proposing two films and subsequently expanding the deal to four — under promises of significant returns, but only two were made and the rest remained incomplete. Authorities claim fake invoices and inflated vouchers were used to siphon funds amounting to around Rs 44.27 crore.

As quoted by Hindustan Times, Investigating Officer (IO), DSP Chagan Rajpurohit, said, “We have collected evidence from the filmmaker's locations in Mumbai. Some bills have also been found. We are ascertaining their veracity. The filmmaker's team did not fully cooperate in the investigation.”

Meanwhile, the filmmaker's lawyer, Kamlesh Dave, has rejected allegations of fraud, claiming every payment was made with the knowledge of both parties. He also questioned the police action. “Police action was done in a hasty manner in this particular case. There are set procedures in the BNSS which were not duly followed,” he said.

Also read: Legal trouble deepens for Vikram Bhatt as the High Court refuses a quash order 

Vikram Bhatt and his wife have been in judicial custody as the case unfolds, and earlier this month the Rajasthan High Court refused to quash the FIR, determining there was prima facie evidence suggesting misappropriation rather than a simple contractual dispute. Their lawyer has argued that the issues are civil in nature and unrelated to criminal intent, and has sought a fair and unbiased investigation through legal channels.