Mohali: Anticipatory bail denied to film firm MD in ₹1-crore fraud

Investors alleged the firm shared no film or ad production details; diverted their funds into crypto without consent

A district court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the managing director of a film production company accused of cheating investors of ₹1 crore by promising to double their money within a few months.

The court held that the allegations were serious and custodial interrogation was required. (HT File)

Additional Sessions Judge Neetika Verma rejected the application filed by Manu Prashant Wig, 47, a resident of Kanpur. The court held that the allegations were serious and custodial interrogation was required.

The case stems from an FIR registered at Zirakpur police station on July 17, 2020, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. Complainant Ashok Kumar Kalra had named Wig, Ashok Wij, Harjit Singh, Pankaj Goyal and Priyesh Sinha.

According to the FIR, the accused, through M/s Blue Fox Motion Pictures Pvt Ltd, allegedly approached people to invest in the company. They projected that the funds would finance and produce films, television serials, web series and events.

To attract investors, they allegedly promised returns and assured them that their investments would double within a few months.

The company also invited actor Sohail Khan to explain the benefits of investing, the order noted. Some investors received small payments, allegedly to build their confidence. However, they later found that the company had not shared details of any film or advertisement being produced.

The complainant alleged that, without informing investors or obtaining their consent, Wig told them that their money would be used to acquire or mine cryptocurrencies. Despite objections, he allegedly repeated the assurance that their investments would double. The investors have neither received their money back nor been given an explanation of how it was invested, the complaint stated.

The FIR alleged that Wig left India for Dubai and Georgia. The court recorded that the total amount involved was approximately ₹1 crore.

Seeking anticipatory bail, Wig’s counsel submitted that he had been falsely implicated and was willing to join the investigation. Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that he could influence witnesses and hamper the investigation.

After examining the record and the nature of the allegations, the judge declined relief, observing that the amount involved and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial on merits.