.....sattabazar put bet n chang got less votes as compared to sushant n also showed that changs win was rigged n due to this sony got 100 crore profit and sattabazar lose that amount ......aaj tak said that CHANG KI 100 CRORE KI BAIMANI JEET....
MAIRAs BIRTHDAY 13.1
CAKE KA TAMASHA 14.1
🏏WPL 2026: Match 6: MIW vs GGW at Navi Mumbai on 13/01/26🏏
Dharma on verge of getting closed
🏏New Zealand Tour of India 2026: 2nd ODI: At Rajkot on 14/01/26 D/N🏏
Maira Vani storyline
Tulsi SN Business bacha payegi??
Tulsi fried Noyna. Mihir rejoices [VIDEO ATTACHED]
Happy Birthday Sultan Mirza 🧁
Toxic song - Chand se pucha
Happy New year
Ship name for Aryamann and Purvi
🏏WPL 2026: Match 7: DCW vs UPWW at DY Patil on 14/01/26🏏
Originally posted by: misskatrina
LOL i like ultimate's reply the best. people are just saying this as there were no controversies around Chang. Come on guys, it's just a show. Your favorite person isn't always gonna win, there's always a winner and a loser just deal with it. I'm sure the celebrities aren't making as much of a big deal out of this than we are. Have good sportsmanship and just go with the flow not everything is expected to go a certain way as much as you believe it.
Originally posted by: xx-Rai-xx
everyone knows that Chang's winning is fake
Sushant is the #1 actor in tv now n won almost all the best actor award this yearn he also plays the lead in the #1 showso there is no way that Sushant could have lostso its obvious that its scripted
I guess, show was not about who is #1 as an actor, it was about dancing. So, if he had won all the best actor awards doesnt justify that he is #1 dancer as well.Originally posted by: xx-Rai-xx
everyone knows that Chang's winning is fake
Sushant is the #1 actor in tv now n won almost all the best actor award this yearn he also plays the lead in the #1 showso there is no way that Sushant could have lostso its obvious that its scripted
if he/she is willing to provide the article or source as to where they got this from, then i can also look at it and determine if the source is valid. but no such proof is provided. and so "innocent until proven guilty."