In Bail Appln. 3599/2023 -DEL HC- Bluefox Motion Pictures head denied bail in investment scam case as Delhi High Court finds prima facie evidence
Justice Amit Sharma [11-12-2023]

Read Order: Manu Prashant Wig V. State (NCT of Delhi)

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, December 14, 2023:  The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by Manu Prashant Wig, the director of Bluefox Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd., in connection with a multi-crore investment scam case. The Court found prima facie evidence of his involvement in the scheme and expressed concerns about potential flight risk.

Briefly stated, the case against Manu Prashant Wig (present applicant) and others was registered based on complaints filed by numerous victims. The accusations included fraudulent inducement to invest in high-return investment schemes by Bluefox Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The accused company had allegedly presented various investment schemes, including time-bound packages with promised returns. Additionally, the accused individuals reportedly persuaded victims to invest in a cryptocurrency called BFX Coin. The investigation revealed that the applicant and others collected funds through Bluefox Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and BFM Pictures LLP, offering high returns and subsequently promoted investment in a cryptocurrency, ultimately defrauding the victims.

The applicant's counsel argued that the total amount due to the complainant was repaid by the applicant, but multiple other complaints were included in the FIR without specific details of the investments made. The applicant, being the Director of M/s Blue Fox Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd., highlighted that the company had produced 12 movies, with some pending production delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The counsel also pointed out discrepancies in the status report regarding the amount received and frozen, creating confusion about the cheated amount. They emphasized that the applicant had provided a detailed disclosure of the money outflow from the accused companies in response to the Investigating Officer's notice. Furthermore, it was stated that a co-accused had been granted bail, and the investigation was claimed to be complete with the chargesheet already filed. Subsequently, the applicant sought release on bail due to these circumstances.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the investigation revealed the involvement of over 200 victims in the scam. According to the Investigating Officer's calculation, the total amount involved in the FIR was estimated to be close to Rs. 8,00,00,000. Furthermore, it was asserted that the present applicant, as the main Director, was purportedly the mastermind behind the entire scam.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma observed that the argument put forward by the counsel for the applicant, claiming that the investments made in M/s Blue Fox Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. could not be returned due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, was not admissible as the allegations pertained to a pre-COVID period. The bench further noted discrepancies in the total cheated amount at various instances in the status report, with the Investigating Officer presenting a detailed chart indicating an approximate investment amount of 8 crores.

It was also brought to light that certain investor had made specific allegations against the present applicant, asserting that he had induced them to invest in the company. Additionally, evidence suggested that the applicant had personally benefited from the scheme, with a substantial sum received in his personal account and payments made on behalf of a petrol pump owned by the applicant's family.

Furthermore, the bench acknowledged the contention put forward by the prosecution, highlighting the possibility of the present applicant being a flight risk. This concern was supported by the applicant's reported absence after being granted interim protection and failure to appear before the ASJ, which was noted at the time of dismissing his bail application.

Consequently, the bench stated that the chargesheet had already been filed, and while further investigations were ongoing, the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicated the active involvement of the present applicant. Additionally, it was noted that other cases involving similar offenses had been registered against the present applicant. The Court found that the conduct of the applicant, including instances of non-appearance despite interim protection and reported flight, raised concerns about the possibility of absconding if granted bail.

Therefore, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, and accordingly, the present application was dismissed.