Court – Mumbai NDPS Court Orders Defreezing of Rhea Chakraborty Bank Account

Court – A special court in Mumbai has directed authorities to lift the freeze on a bank account linked to actor Rhea Chakraborty and her mother, Sandhya Chakraborty. The decision came after the court found that the investigating agency had not followed mandatory legal procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Court Finds Lapses in Procedure

The order, issued on April 25 by Special Judge U.C. Deshmukh, allowed the applicants to regain access to their ICICI Bank account. The court made it clear that the account could now be operated in accordance with Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The ruling focused primarily on procedural compliance, emphasizing that statutory provisions must be strictly followed when authorities take action involving financial assets.

According to the applicants, the account had been frozen without adhering to the legal framework outlined in Section 68F of the NDPS Act. This provision governs how property suspected of being illegally acquired can be seized or frozen during investigations.

Prosecution’s Argument and Court’s Response

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) opposed the request, arguing that evidence collected during the investigation suggested Rhea Chakraborty’s alleged involvement in a drug-related network. The agency maintained that the freezing of the account was justified based on statements and links established during the probe.

However, the court did not find this argument sufficient to override procedural requirements. It highlighted that even in cases involving serious allegations, authorities must operate within clearly defined legal boundaries. The judge noted that the law requires any freezing order to be confirmed by a competent authority within a specified period.

Importance of Section 68F Compliance

The court pointed out that Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act clearly states that any freezing or seizure order loses its validity if it is not confirmed within 30 days. In this case, the investigating agency failed to secure such confirmation.

The order specifically recorded that there was no dispute regarding the freezing of the account by the concerned officer. At the same time, the agency did not deny that it had not complied with the mandatory requirement of obtaining timely confirmation.

As a result, the court concluded that the continuation of the freeze was legally unsustainable. Without proper confirmation, the action could not be justified under the law.

Reference to High Court Precedent

While delivering its decision, the court also referred to an earlier ruling by the Bombay High Court. It reiterated that the power to freeze assets is not absolute and must be exercised with caution and adherence to legal safeguards.

The judgment underscored that such powers are subject to checks and balances to prevent misuse. Authorities must ensure that every procedural step is followed, particularly when dealing with financial restrictions that directly impact individuals.

Background of the Case

The matter is connected to a broader investigation initiated in 2020 following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The case had drawn nationwide attention, with multiple agencies examining various aspects, including alleged drug-related activities.

During the course of the investigation, several actions were taken, including the freezing of accounts believed to be linked to the case. However, legal challenges have continued to arise regarding the manner in which certain الإجراءات were carried out.

In a related development earlier, the Bombay High Court had granted relief to Rhea Chakraborty by ordering the return of her passport. The court had observed that there was no strong basis to assume that she would evade legal proceedings.

Court Reinforces Rule of Law

The latest order serves as a reminder that investigative powers must align with legal procedures. While agencies are empowered to act in cases involving serious allegations, those actions must remain within the framework established by law.

By directing the defreezing of the account, the court has reinforced the principle that procedural safeguards are not optional but essential to ensure fairness and accountability in the justice system.