The Gujarat High Court has sought a detailed explanation from CID Crime over the investigation into the BZ Group Ponzi scheme, including why several people named in complaints linked to cricket-related investors were not listed as accused in a case against BZ Financial Services.
The proceedings concern allegations that Indian cricketers Harshal Patel, Rahul Tewatia and Jayant Yadav invested crores of rupees in a scheme associated with Bhupendra Zala and did not receive the promised returns after the agreed period. The allegations are part of the ongoing legal proceedings and have not been established by a final court finding.
According to Gujarat Samachar’s report, the court questioned the role of the police and CID Crime after complaints were allegedly submitted to the Bodakdev police station and other relevant authorities. The cricketers’ lawyer, advocate Kishan Chakvawala, argued that there had been deliberate delay and indifference in taking appropriate legal action despite written complaints.
The lawyer told the court that the alleged scale of the case required an impartial investigation and the application of appropriate criminal provisions against those found responsible. The proceedings also referred to the alleged involvement of Dhawal Shah, Punita Shah and Viral Shah, whose roles are being examined in connection with the investment dispute.
The report states that Dhawal Shah, described as a former manager associated with the Gujarat Titans franchise, allegedly used his position and relationships in the cricketing world to build investor confidence in the scheme linked to Bhupendra Zala. The report further states that investors were allegedly encouraged to put money into the scheme on the promise of high returns over a short period. These claims remain subject to investigation and judicial scrutiny.
The High Court had earlier directed the police to take a prompt decision on complaints connected with the matter. During the latest proceedings, it sought clarification from CID Crime on why Dhawal Shah, Punita Shah and Viral Shah had not been included as accused in the complaint registered against BZ Financial Services, despite their names being raised in the proceedings.
The court has also sought information on the progress of the investigation and issued directions concerning the presence of relevant officials at the next hearing. The explanation from CID Crime is expected to address the handling of the complaints, the basis for the existing case and the status of the inquiry into the roles of the individuals named before the court.
The proceedings place the investigation itself under judicial scrutiny, particularly the pace of police action and the process used to determine who is named as an accused. Further developments will depend on the explanation submitted by CID Crime and the court’s consideration at the next hearing.
