Rhea Chakraborty has had a big win in court. A special court in Mumbai has ordered that several of her family’s bank accounts be unfrozen in relation to Sushant Singh Rajput’s death. The court said the NCB didn’t meet the deadlines in the NDPS Act, so keeping the accounts frozen was no longer acceptable.
What the court decided
Judge UC Deshmukh said Rhea, her brother Showik Chakraborty, and their mother Sandhya Chakraborty could have access to their accounts again. The order was made on April 25, 2026, and comes after many years where they couldn’t get to their money.
The court pointed out that the law says a freeze on an account has to be officially confirmed within a certain time. Specifically, the judge said the NCB hadn’t confirmed the freeze within 30 days as required by the NDPS Act, and so the freeze wasn’t valid.
The judge’s written decision says the NCB admits it didn’t follow Section 68F, subsection (2) of the Act and didn’t make the order it should have made according to that part of the law. Because of this and a previous ruling in the Jatinder case, the court said the family’s request to unfreeze the accounts should be granted.
Why the accounts were frozen
The NCB initially froze the family’s accounts in 2020 while they investigated Sushant Singh Rajput’s death. Some accounts were released in 2021, but several were still blocked, and so a new request was made to the court.
This latest request was for access to more accounts at ICICI, Axis, and Kotak banks. A lot of these were jointly owned by different family members.
Statements and opposition in court
Geeta Nayyar, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the government, argued against the request. The NCB said statements from the investigation suggested Rhea was connected to a drug dealing operation and to people who sell drugs, and this justified the freeze.
Rhea’s lawyers said the problem wasn’t whether Rhea was involved in anything (the “merits of the case”), but that the NCB hadn’t followed the correct procedures. They asked the court to firmly enforce the protections within the NDPS Act.
The legal argument under NDPS Act
Lawyers Ayaz Khan and Zehra Charania, representing Rhea and her mother, said the NCB hadn’t followed Section 68F of the NDPS Act. They explained that a freeze must be approved by a specific official (a “Competent Authority”) within a set time, to prevent people from being unfairly denied access to their money indefinitely.
They added that subsection 2 of Section 68F is there to stop abuse of power, and in this case, no approval had been given for the four accounts in question.
For clarity, here are the key legal points the defence highlighted:
– Section 68F permits seizure or freezing of suspected drug-linked property
– Sub-section 2 mandates timely review by a Competent Authority
What the order changes now
Because of the court’s decision, the accounts are now unfrozen. This means the Chakraborty family can finally use money that they’ve been unable to reach because of the freeze.
The judge’s insistence on following the timelines in the law makes it very clear: how things are done is important. Even in very public investigations, you have to stick to the safeguards within the NDPS Act.
Rhea Chakraborty and her family haven’t made an official statement after the ruling, but the order does give them a degree of finality to a long-standing problem with their finances.
Why this matters beyond one case
This decision draws attention to making sure the correct process is followed when freezing assets under the NDPS Act. It shows that things like the 30-day confirmation aren’t just details, they’re crucial safeguards.
It also demonstrates that courts will look very carefully at procedural errors, particularly when restrictions continue for years without being officially confirmed.
Here are the main takeaways for anyone tracking the case:
– The court allowed defreezing of multiple family accounts
– The NCB’s non-compliance with Section 68F proved decisive
– The prosecution’s opposition did not overcome the procedural gap
What happens now is straightforward but important: the family has access. After a long time and many legal arguments, they are once again in control of their bank accounts. The details of the investigation remain on record, but for now, the freeze is over and the law’s timeframe has had the last word.
