TV serial producers granted anticipatory bail in ₹1 crore cheating case

The sessions court on Saturday granted anticipatory bail to Shaila Kanekar and her husband Santosh Kanekar, both producers of a television serial, who allegedly duped an actor of over ₹1 crore with promises of lucrative returns in their venture

Mumbai: The sessions court on Saturday granted anticipatory bail to Shaila Kanekar and her husband Santosh Kanekar, both producers of a television serial, who allegedly duped an actor of over ₹1 crore with promises of lucrative returns in their venture.

HT Image

Judge Dr AA Joglekar, while granting the anticipatory bail said, “While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.” The court directed the couple to provide a personal bond of ₹30,000 each, along with one or two sureties of the same amount. Additionally, they were directed to surrender their passports, with a prohibition on leaving the city without prior court permission.

The complainant, Madhuri Vishwas Bhosale, owner of MVB Media Pvt. Ltd alleged that the Kanekars had taken ₹1.18 crore from her for a Marathi serial, promising substantial profits. Bhosale claimed that the funds were instead used to pay the 2018 GST of Atharva Theatres. The defense, however, presented a joint venture agreement, asserting Bhosale’s status as a co-producer with agreed-upon credit in the serial. He further stated that the sum had been blocked by Sony Marathi Television. Upon receiving it, applicants would tender the proportionate amount, including interest along with principal, to the informant as agreed between them.

Public prosecutor Abhijit Gondwal opposed the bail application on the grounds that the traces of the sum invested by the informant were under progress and subsequently, the bank statement of the accused person was to be recovered. “Further, correspondence from Sony TV Marathi and the GST Department is awaited. Hence, custodial interrogation is necessitated,” he added.

However, rebutting the prosecution, the court pointed out that the applicant’s statement had been recorded and specifically questioned the investigating officer as to why such an offence, if found to be cognizable, was not registered and why was custody required instead of direct recording of the statement.