MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Film Producer in Rs 52 Lakh Cheating Case, Orders Deposit Within 45 Days

The Indore Bench granted anticipatory bail to a partner of Sugar and Spice Production firm accused of cheating a financier of Rs 52 lakh for the Hindi film “Koka Kola”, now titled “Lucky”, directing full deposit of the disputed amount within 45 days as a bail condition.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, on 22 May 2026, allowed the first anticipatory bail application filed by Shreyansh S/Omahendra Dharival, a partner in M/s Sugar and Spice Production Partnership Firm, in connection with FIR No. 390 of 2025 registered at Police Station MIG Thana, Indore. The FIR was registered on 27 July 2025 following a direction by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Justice Gajendra Singh, sitting singly, found no custodial requirement in the investigation and made the grant conditional on the applicant depositing the entire disputed amount of Rs 52 lakh within 45 days.

The Dispute Before the Court

The applicant is in the business of film production and is a partner at M/s Sugar and Spice Production Partnership Firm. The firm, along with associates, produced a Hindi feature film originally titled Koka Kola, now known as Lucky, starring Sunny Leone, Brahmanandan, Sunil Verma, and Rahul Dev.

To complete the film, the applicant sought financial assistance and approached the complainant, Sanjay Bindal, son of G.L. Bindal. The complainant, who had an interest in independently producing films in the future, agreed to provide financial assistance of Rs 52,00,000 (rupees fifty-two lakhs) to the firm. An agreement was executed on 15 September 2019 recording this arrangement.

The applicant also entered into a separate agreement with Zee Films dated 11 June 2019. The film was completed and a Censor Certificate was obtained.

The core grievance of the complainant relates to Clause 7 of the agreement dated 28 June 2019, which contained a negative covenant. That clause prohibited the release of the film, its promo, trailer, poster, or songs in any format — print or digital — worldwide, until the complainant's investment was repaid to his satisfaction. Despite this, the songs of the film were released through the YouTube channel of Zee Music Company. The complainant lodged a private complaint before the trial court, and the JMFC, Indore, by order dated 12 July 2025, directed registration of an FIR under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Submissions and the Legal Issue

Counsel for the applicant, Mr Ashok Saravgi, appearing along with Ms Varsha Gupta, submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated. It was argued that the applicant and associates had produced more than 50 films released successfully at the box office, and that the applicant held a good reputation in society. Counsel submitted that the applicant was ready and willing to deposit the total amount of Rs 52,00,000 in instalments within a time-bound period. It was also submitted that custodial interrogation was not required and that conclusion of trial would take considerable time.

Mr Viraj Godha, Government Advocate, appeared for the respondent State and opposed the application, praying for its rejection.

The central legal question was whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) was warranted in a case involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy arising from a film financing arrangement.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Gajendra Singh considered the rival submissions and the case diary. The court identified two factors as decisive: first, there was no custodial requirement of the applicant in the investigation; second, the applicant had expressed readiness to deposit the entire disputed amount.

The court was of the view that these circumstances made it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The order expressly stated that it was made without commenting on the merits of the case.

The willingness to deposit the full disputed sum — Rs 52 lakh — was not merely noted as a submission but was converted into a binding condition of the bail itself, with a 45-day deadline running from the date of the order. The court further provided that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, the prosecution or the aggrieved party would be free to move an appropriate application.

Outcome

The application was allowed. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. The applicant must also furnish a bail bond of the same amount before the committal court or trial court.

The following conditions were imposed:

• The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
• The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
• The applicant shall abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.
• The applicant shall deposit the entire amount of Rs 52,00,000 (rupees fifty-two lakhs) in dispute within a period of forty-five days from 22 May 2026. If the entire amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the prosecution or aggrieved party shall be free to move an appropriate application.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.