Rhea Chakraborty shares late Sushant's note of 'gratitude'
Mumbai: A day after she was grilled by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged money laundering in Sushant Singh Rajput case, his girlfriend and actress Rhea Chakraborty on Saturday shared a picture of a note which she claims was written by the late actor expressing his gratitude for certain things in his life.
Chakraborty (28) also shared through her advocate Satish Maneshinde a photograph of a water sipper, which is a piece of movie merchandise from Rajput's 2019 film "Chhichhore".
"The only property of Sushant that I possess," she said in a message sent along with the photo to the media. The other picture shows a page of a notebook titled "Gratitude List" with seven serial numbers.
"I am grateful for my life. I am grateful for Lillu in my life. I am grateful for Bebu in my life. I am grateful for Sir in my life. I am grateful for Ma'am in my life. I am grateful for Fudge in my life. I am grateful for all the love in my life," reads the note which Maneshinde said was written by the late actor in Chakraborty's notebook.
In her message shared by Maneshinde, Chakraborty stated, "And this is his (Rajput's) handwriting...Lillu is Showik (Chakraborty's brother), Bebu is me, Sir is my dad, Ma'm is my mom and Fudge is his dog".
Maneshinde, however, did not say when the note was written or if it was handed over to the Mumbai police which had registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) after Rajput's death in June this year.
The actor (34) was found hanging at his residence in suburban Bandra on June 14. His father K K Singh on July 25 lodged a complaint with the Bihar police against Chakraborty, her parents Indrajit and Sandhya Chakraborty, her brother Showik, her former manager Shruti Modi and one Samuel Miranda, who Chakraborty had employed as the manager in Rajput's house.
Based on the complaint, the Bihar police registered an FIR against the accused persons and booked them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including abetment to suicide, criminal conspiracy, cheating and wrongful confinement.
K K Singh had also alleged financial irregularities in Rajput's bank accounts and properties, and claimed that Rs 15 crore was siphoned away from his accounts. The ED had on July 31 registered a case of money laundering against the Chakrabortys and others.
The agency on Friday questioned Rhea Chakraborty, Showik, Indrajit Chakraborty and Shruti Modi for several hours at their south Mumbai office. Chakraborty had moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the FIR registered against her from Patna to Mumbai.
The Bihar government had earlier this week recommended the probe in the Rajput death case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
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.
