On January 15, the Bombay High Court provided temporary relief by granting interim protection from arrest to two women (applicants and accused) who are facing charges of defrauding Bollywood actor Vivek Oberoi of ₹1.55 crore.

Justice SV Kotwal, serving as the single judge, has extended protection until February 22 to Nandita Saha and Raadhika Pratap Nanda. They are partners of Anandita Entertainment LLP, a partnership firm that involves Bollywood actor Vivek Oberoi and his wife.

The judge noted that there was no apparent criminal offense established and characterized the situation as a dispute among business partners.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Oberoi's company, Oberoi Mega Entertainment LLP, lodged through its authorized representative, Chartered Accountant Deven Bafna.

According to the First Information Report (FIR), Vivek Oberoi had formed an acquaintance with a person named Sanjay Saha in February 2020, leading to a decision to establish a firm. The agreement between them included specific clauses, where Oberoi invested ₹27 lakh with the expectation of receiving a 33.33% stake in the company.

The applicant-accused, Nandita Saha, is the mother of Sanjay Saha. According to the arrangement, both Nandita and Sanjay were supposed to receive 33.34% shares each, while the remaining 33.33% shares were designated for the applicant Raadhika Nanda.

Subsequently, a separate firm named Anandita Entertainment LLP was established. However, according to the First Information Report (FIR), Vivek Oberoi was allegedly defrauded of an amount totaling ₹1.55 crore in this transaction.

The primary accusation against the two accused women involves an investment of ₹5 lakh in Tata AIG Life Insurance in Nandita Saha's name, and Raadhika Pratap Nanda allegedly took ₹10 lakh for her salary. Sanjay Saha is currently in judicial custody, while Nandita and Raadhika, the accused, sought anticipatory bail from the sessions court. Following the rejection of their application by the Sessions Court, the two women have now approached the High Court.

The applicants argued that the First Information Report (FIR) explicitly indicated that all decisions were made by Sanjay Saha.