[CRPIL (ST) No. 10580 of 2023 — Rashid Khan Pathan vs. Shah Rukh Khan & Others]
If Shah Rukh Khan claims no bribe was paid then on what basis was an FIR registered against Sameer Wankhede for accepting one? Conversely, if the agency believes a bribe was paid and Shahrukh’s statement is false then why has he not been made an accused for giving a bribe under anti-corruption laws?
⚡ CBI–NCB Caught in Their Own Contradiction?
If Shah Rukh Khan has stated that no bribe was ever paid, then on what basis has an FIR been registered against Sameer Wankhede for allegedly accepting a bribe from him? Conversely, if the version of the NCB and CBI is correct that a bribe was indeed paid, then why have Shah Rukh Khan and other alleged intermediaries not been made accused under Sections 8-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for giving a bribe without reporting the matter to the competent anti-corruption authorities?
The actual story is that under the leadership of the then NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede, Rhea Chakraborty was arrested during the investigation into the alleged drug supply network linked to the deaths of Sushant Singh Rajput and Disha Salian. It is claimed that during this probe, Sameer Wankhede gathered sensitive information purportedly indicating the existence of a drug racket involving Rhea Chakraborty, Aditya Thackeray, Dino Morea, and many other strong drug mafia. following these developments, elements of the alleged drug mafia, in collusion with certain corrupt “hafta-collecting” officials within the NCB and CBI, hatched a conspiracy to remove Sameer Wankhede from the investigation. It is further alleged that, to achieve this objective, a false case was engineered against him in order to discredit, isolate, and ultimately neutralize his role in the probe and to transfer him out of Mumbai. An order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), whose judicial bench reportedly found indications of mala fide intent in the transfer of Sameer Wankhede from Mumbai. The Tribunal observed that certain NCB officials appeared to have played a questionable role in what was described as an allegedly unlawful transfer. Consequently, the CAT is stated to have set aside the transfer and directed that Sameer Wankhede be reinstated in Mumbai.
The alleged ₹5 million (₹50 lakh) bribery controversy linked to the cruise drug case involving Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, his son Aryan Khan, and manager Pooja Dadlani.
A Public Interest Litigation seeking registration of FIRs against them — as well as certain NCB and CBI officials — will be heard on Monday, 23 February 2026, before the Chief Justice Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The matter is listed at Serial No. 220 under Category-A, with proceedings likely to begin at 11:00 AM. Senior Advocate Nilesh Ojha, National President of the Indian Bar Association, is appearing for the petitioner Rashid Khan Pathan.
🚨 “Caught in their own web?” — Key Controversy
On one hand, Shah Rukh Khan, Aryan Khan, and Pooja Dadlani have reportedly maintained that no bribe was paid.
On the other hand, an FIR has been registered against Sameer Wankhede for allegedly accepting a bribe.
👉 The central question being raised:
💥 “If no bribe was paid… how could a case of bribe have been accepted is registered?”
⚖️ Legal Questions Raised
🔹 If no bribe was given — on what basis was the case registered?
🔹 If a bribe was given — why were the alleged givers not prosecuted?
Legal experts note that corruption offences are ordinarily bilateral — both the giver and receiver are punishable.
Records of CBI and NCB
NCB reports and the CBI FIR allegedly state that ₹5 million was routed through intermediaries to Sameer Wankhede, purportedly from Shah Rukh Khan’s side via his secretary Pooja Dadlani.
However:
👉 Action has allegedly been taken against the supposed receiver
👉 No case has been filed against the alleged givers
Under Sections 8-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, giving a bribe and not informing Anti Corruption department is also an offence . The non action against bribe giver has exposed CBI and NCB, making the alleged one-sided action highly controversial.
🔥 “Reward for Exposing a Drug Syndicate?”
It is contended that Sameer Wankhede, known as a strict and duty-bound officer, became a target after initiating action in several high-profile drug cases. During the investigation into the drug supply angle in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, the NCB under his leadership arrested Rhea Chakraborty in September 2020.
As the probe progressed, alleged links involving Rhea Chakraborty, Aditya Thackeray, Dino Morea, and others were said to be emerging, reportedly causing unease in influential circles. Thereafter powerful interests — including elements of the drug mafia, their networks, and allegedly complicit officials — conspired to remove Sameer Wankhede from Mumbai and divest him of charge of the cases. There were other high profile cases against Bollywood stars like Deepika Padukone and others where Sameer Wankhede was investigating. Therefore it is alleged in the circle certain corrupt officers from NCB, purportedly seeking to extract large sums as illegal “hafta” from drug syndicates, joined this conspiracy, following which a bribery case was fabricated against him.
A strict officer who challenged influential drug networks was, according to supporters, systematically targeted. Efforts were allegedly made to remove him from his post, discredit his reputation, and entangle him in legal proceedings, with the objective of derailing the ongoing investigation, in the Rhea Chakraborty and other big drug mafia matter.
Supporters contend that this was not merely a personal action against an individual officer, but an attempt to neutralize a probe that posed a threat to an alleged organized drug syndicate.
It is further argued that the situation became complicated for the investigating agencies when Shah Rukh Khan reportedly denied having paid any bribe, which, according to this version, placed the CBI and NCB in a difficult and potentially embarrassing position.
🏛️ CAT Order Cited
The petition also refers to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which reportedly found mala fide intent in Wankhede’s transfer from Mumbai.
According to the Tribunal’s findings:
▪️ The transfer lacked valid administrative necessity
▪️ It appeared contrary to established rules
▪️ External factors seemed to have influenced the decision
The Tribunal therefore set aside the transfer as unsustainable in law and directed that he should be reinstated in Mumbai.
🚨 Public Reaction
The controversy has triggered strong public reactions. Many citizens and activists have expressed support for Wankhede, alleging that action against him resulted from external pressure and at the instance of drug syndicate.
Supporters claim he was targeted because of his aggressive action against powerful drug networks.
⚡ All Eyes on Monday’s Hearing
The hearing before the Chief Justice Bench is expected to have far-reaching implications — not only for the individuals involved but also for the credibility and neutrality of investigative agencies.
💣 Major disclosures are widely anticipated.
