Two jewellery boxes. Both empty. That was the moment Savleen Singh, one of Bollywood's most sought-after makeup artists, realised that two pairs of diamond-studded earrings — rented, irreplaceable, and worth Rs 1.35 crore — had vanished somewhere between Mumbai and New York.
The earrings had been borrowed from two established Mumbai jewellers for filmmaker and fashion producer Rhea Kapoor's appearance at the Met Gala in New York on April 29. They never made it onto anyone's ears. When Singh opened the cases inside the New York hotel room, the jewellery was gone. The exact moment of theft — whether it happened at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, mid-air, at a Dubai transit stop, or at the hotel itself — is precisely what Mumbai Police's Sahar Police Station is now trying to determine.
What sounds like a scene from a heist film is, in fact, a real and legally registered case filed under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — the theft provision under India's new criminal code. The investigation spans at least three countries, an unknowable number of possible suspects, and a crime window that police are struggling to pin down.
What Was Taken — and Why It Matters
The missing jewellery consisted of two distinct pieces, each with its own provenance and price point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Both sets were rented — not owned — by Rhea Kapoor's team, which is standard industry practice. High-profile stylists and fashion producers frequently borrow jewellery from established houses for international events, operating under loan agreements that make the borrowing party responsible for loss or damage. In this case, the financial liability sits squarely with those who had custody of the pieces.
The Complaint: What Savleen Singh Told Police
Savleen Singh has been a core member of Rhea Kapoor's professional circle for seven years. As the team's makeup artist, she was entrusted with carrying the jewellery cases — a responsibility that is not unusual in celebrity production teams, where a single trusted person often handles multiple high-value items during travel.
According to the FIR, Singh opened the jewellery boxes inside the New York hotel room specifically to hand them over to another team member named Shireen. The boxes were empty. Both pieces, worth a combined Rs 1.35 crore, had disappeared without any visible sign of tampering. After returning to Mumbai, Singh filed a formal complaint at Sahar Police Station — the jurisdiction that covers Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, making it the natural receiving authority for travel-linked theft cases.
Police registered the case against an unidentified person. As of June 20, no arrests have been made.
The Investigation: Three Countries, One Open Window
This is where the case becomes genuinely complicated. Investigators are examining the travel timeline in full — from Mumbai's airport to the Dubai transit stop to the arrival in New York. Each stage represents a potential point of theft, and each comes with its own set of challenges for an Indian police team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What police are working from is Savleen Singh's account of when she last physically verified the jewellery. That moment of last-known-presence is the starting point of the crime window. Until investigators narrow that window using surveillance footage, baggage records, or witness accounts, the case remains technically open on all four fronts simultaneously.
The Industry Context: A Systemic Vulnerability
Rhea Kapoor's case is not an isolated incident. Celebrity-adjacent jewellery theft is a consistent, if underreported, phenomenon in Bollywood. The Kapoor family itself has been touched by high-value theft before — in a separate incident, a nurse working at Sonam Kapoor's Delhi residence was arrested along with her husband for allegedly stealing cash and jewellery worth Rs 2.4 crore. Even Kareena Kapoor's household was targeted in a theft case involving domestic workers.
But the Rhea Kapoor case carries a feature that makes it structurally different: the theft occurred across an international travel corridor, and the items stolen were borrowed goods. This creates a dual liability problem — legal liability for the loss of rented property, and the reputational complexity of a theft that happened under a trusted employee's watch.
In the fashion industry, high-value jewellery loans for international events typically come with insurance requirements, custody agreements, and sometimes dedicated security escorts. Whether those protocols were followed in this instance — and whether any insurance policy covers the loss — has not been made public.
The Legal Framework: What Section 303(2) BNS Means
The FIR in this case has been registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — India's updated criminal code that came into force in 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code. Section 303(2) governs theft and prescribes punishment of up to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both. It is the direct successor to IPC Section 379.
Filing under BNS rather than the older IPC is largely procedural, but it signals that this case is being investigated under the country's new legal regime. Interestingly, the multi-jurisdictional nature of the theft means that even if Indian police establish that the theft occurred outside Indian territory — say, in Dubai or New York — the complaint filed in Mumbai may need to be revisited in terms of jurisdiction.
What Happens Next
Several threads will determine how this investigation progresses:
CCTV review: Mumbai airport's extensive camera network is the most immediately accessible evidence source. If the jewellery was present when the team checked in and gone by arrival in New York, surveillance footage may help establish when and where the items disappeared.
Airline and transit records: Passenger manifests, boarding sequences, and cabin access logs from the flight could narrow the suspect pool, especially if the theft occurred in transit.
Hotel records in New York: If the jewellery arrived intact in New York and was taken from the hotel room, that shifts the locus of crime to US jurisdiction — complicating matters significantly for the Mumbai Police.
Insurance and ownership resolution: The jewellers — Mehta Jewellers and Goenka Jewellers — will likely be pursuing their own legal remedies. Whether Rhea Kapoor's team held a specific rider or policy for the loan will become a key civil matter running parallel to the criminal investigation.
For now, the case remains at its most preliminary stage: an FIR filed, a suspect pool unknown, and a crime scene that may span three countries and two continents. The Rs 1.35 crore worth of diamond and emerald earrings, borrowed for one of fashion's biggest nights, are still missing.
Other Articles to Read:
