The Telegraph
Since 1st March, 1999
Email This Page
Theft in Shah Rukh house

Mumbai, Nov. 17: First it was Jyoti Basu. Now it's SRK.

The king of Bollywood's fortress, Mannat, proved as vulnerable to theft as the communist leader's sprawling Calcutta residence.

Police said Shah Rukh Khan's wife and relatives lodged a complaint with Bandra police station saying that jewellery and cash worth Rs 460,000 were stolen from the bungalow on the night of Id on Monday.

'The money and jewellery were inside a purse belonging to one of Khan's relatives,' said deputy commissioner of police Amitabh Gupta. 'On November 15 it went missing. They registered a complaint last night,' he said.

Gupta added that prima facie it seemed to be an 'insider job'. 'There is no evidence of a break-in,' he said.

A break-in would have required an army, as any visitor passing by the bungalow at Bandstand in Bandra, one of Mumbai's most affluent localities, knows.

Forbidding iron gates, which look like they have never opened to let any outsider in, have windows cut out from which peer the stern faces of security guards.

Two high walls, spiked with glass shards, almost hide what is inside from public view. Only from behind the top of the gates rises the head of a gigantic villa.

Shah Rukh is said to have spent Rs 25 crore to buy and do up the property. But if there has been a theft now, there have been other misfortunes from the very start that people have linked to the bungalow.

In 2000, just after he moved in, the first venture of his own company Dreamz Unlimited, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, flopped.

Then with the bungalow's previous owners not having cleared their tax dues, he had to pay Rs 2 crore. The colossal Asoka, also from Dreamz Unlimited, failed to set the box-office afire.

Finally, a Feng Shui expert pronounced that Khan was a West person and since the main gate as well as the entrance of the house faced in that direction, the actor, and the bungalow, were reportedly not unlucky.

Now comes this bit of trouble. The loss of Rs 460,000 may not, however, rank as unlucky in this particular household.

Email This Page