The Gujarat High Court has sought an explanation from the CID Crime branch over the investigation into the alleged BZ Group Ponzi scheme, including complaints linked to substantial investments by cricketers Harshal Patel, Rahul Tewatia and Jayant Yadav.
The court has questioned the role of the police and investigating authorities in the case and asked why certain individuals named in connection with BZ Financial Services were not included as accused in a complaint. The next hearing is expected to examine the progress of the investigation and the response from the relevant officials.
The case is linked to Bhupendra Zala and the BZ Group, which has been accused of collecting investments by promising high returns over a short period. According to the report, investors said they did not receive the promised returns after the relevant period ended. The allegations involving the cricketers concern investments running into crores of rupees.
The reported proceedings also refer to the alleged role of Dhaval Shah, a former manager associated with the Gujarat Titans franchise, his wife Punita Shah and Viral Shah. The report says the court has sought an explanation from CID Crime on why these individuals were not named as accused in a complaint registered against BZ Financial Services. Their alleged involvement remains a matter for investigation and has not been established by a court in the material supplied for this report.
The cricketers’ lawyer, Kishan Chakravala, told the High Court that written complaints had been submitted before the Bodakdev police station and other concerned authorities. He alleged that there had been deliberate delay and indifference in taking appropriate legal action. The lawyer argued that the main persons allegedly responsible for the scheme should be investigated impartially under appropriate criminal provisions.
The High Court had previously directed the police to take a prompt decision on complaints related to the matter, according to the report. The latest intervention places the conduct and progress of the investigation under renewed judicial scrutiny. It also raises a wider institutional question about how complaints involving financial schemes are assessed when influential intermediaries or professional networks are alleged to have helped build investor confidence.
The case illustrates the importance of tracing the movement of investor funds, identifying the people who solicited or facilitated investments, and determining whether complaints were acted upon within the applicable legal framework. Those questions will have to be addressed through the investigation and the court proceedings rather than through allegations alone.
At the forthcoming hearing, CID Crime is expected to provide the explanation sought by the Gujarat High Court, along with details of the investigation’s progress and the presence of the concerned officials.
