ED summons Rhea Chakraborty to appear on Aug 7
New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned actor Rhea Chakraborty for questioning on Friday in a money laundering probe stemming from a complaint filed by Sushant Singh Rajput's father with the Bihar Police in connection with his death, officials said on Wednesday.
They said Chakraborty, 28, has been asked to depose before the investigating officer of the case on August 7.
Once she appears, the actor is expected to be questioned about her friendship with Rajput, possible business dealings and the developments that took place over the last few years between them.
Her statement will be recorded by the agency under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The summons are linked to a money laundering case that was registered by the ED on July 31 on the basis of a Bihar Police FIR in which Sushant Singh Rajput's 74-year-old father K K Singh had accused actress Rhea Chakraborty and her family of abetting the Bollywood actor's suicide.
Rajput, 34, was found hanging in his apartment in Mumbai's Bandra area on June 14.
The central probe agency also questioned Sushant's house manager in Mumbai on Wednesday in this case.
It had grilled the deceased actor's Chartered Accountant (CA) Sandeep Shridhar on August 3.
Under the ED's scanner are at least two companies linked to Rajput and some financial deals involving Chakraborty and her brother Showik.
The ED case, registered on July 31, has been filed against the accused named in the Bihar Police FIR that includes Chakraborty, her family and six others.
Rajput's father, who resides in Patna, had last month lodged the complaint with the Bihar Police against Chakraborty, her family members and six others for abetment to suicide of his son and fraud.
Singh has accused Chakraborty, purported girlfriend of Rajput, of having befriended his son in May 2019 with the intention of furthering her own career.
The father also wanted a police investigation to ascertain where the Rs 15 crore, which he claimed was deposited in a bank account held by Rajput, had been transferred.
The Mumbai police is also probing the alleged suicide case, and has questioned several top Bollywood producers and directors in this case.
Chakraborty had released a video statement soon after the ED case was filed.
"I have immense faith in god and the judiciary. I believe that I will get justice. Even though a lot of horrible things are being said about me on the electronic media, I refrain from commenting on the advice of my lawyers as the matter is sub-judice. Satyamev Jayate, the truth shall prevail," she had said in the message.
The Supreme Court, while hearing Chakraborty's plea for transferring the Bihar Police FIR to the Mumbai Police, on Wednesday said that truth behind the "unfortunate" death of a "gifted and talented artist" (Rajput) should come out even as the Centre apprised it of having accepted the Bihar government's recommendation for a CBI probe in the matter.
Rajput starred in films like 'Shuddh Desi Romance', 'Raabta', 'Kedarnath', 'Chhichhore' and 'Sonchiriya'. His most prominent role was in cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni's biopic 'MS Dhoni: The Untold Story'.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Excise policy case: HC gives more time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to ED plea to expunge remarks
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time till April 2 to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed displeasure over the request for more time by the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal and other accused, and said it would fix a date for final hearing in the matter during the next hearing on April 2.
"I don't know why you are not filing a reply. You should have filed a reply if you think you really needed to file a reply. They are only saying judge should not have written something that he has written."
"By second (of April), you file your reply. Then we will fix a date for final hearing," the judge said.
The Enforcement Directorate's counsel said there was no need to file replies to its petition and that this was an attempt to delay the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, contended that the agency's petition has no impact on the accused, as the challenge was limited to the trial court judge's observations against the agency when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the CBI case.
The counsel for one of the accused said a brief reply was necessary and time was needed for it as the discharge order was 600 pages long.
Justice Sharma remarked that the ED's case has nothing to do with all 600 pages.
"Here is a prosecuting agency which has stated that the judge exceeded jurisdiction. I told them even I make such observations. I need to deicide it but you said I need to file a reply. Now you say 600 pages have to be read," the judge observed.
Raju also urged the court to direct that the observations of the trial court would not be relied upon by the accused in related proceedings. "It is a short date. Let them reply," the court responded.
On March 10, the court had asked Kejriwal and others to respond to the ED's plea.
In the petition, ED said the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to the CBI's case. It said the ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard.
"If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand ... grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner," the ED plea said.
"Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach...," it added.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, pulling up the CBI by saying that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
To compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice, it said.
In its order, the trial court highlighted that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
It said the issue assumed heightened significance where an accused was arrested for the offence of money laundering and thereafter required to surmount the stringent twin conditions prescribed for the grant of bail, resulting in prolonged incarceration even at the pre-trial stage.
It further said that despite the settled legal position that the offence of money laundering cannot independently subsist and requires the foundational edifice of a legally sustainable predicate offence, the prevailing practice revealed a disturbing inversion.
Underlining that the objective of PMLA was undoubtedly legitimate and compelling, the trial judge mentioned that statutory power, however wide, could not eclipse constitutional safeguards.
