No recovery, no witness: Court discharges accused in 2020 drug crackdown after SSR death

The case against Kunal Jagdish Jani stemmed from a small-quantity seizure, where an accused was allegedly found with about 4 grams of cocaine.

Mumbai: A special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) court has discharged Kunal Jagdish Jani from a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) during its crackdown on alleged drug peddlers following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2020, holding that there was no legally admissible material linking Jani to the alleged drug network and that putting him through trial would be a “futile exercise”.

The court also found a complete absence of independent incriminating material against Jani. (PEXEL)

NCB had, in August 2020, registered a case linked to the abetment of Rajput’s suicide, based on inputs from the Enforcement Directorate. The agency later arrested several individuals, including actor Rhea Chakraborty, and filed a charge-sheet naming over 30 accused. As the investigation progressed, it registered multiple additional NDPS cases based on disclosure statements and small recoveries, treating them as separate prosecutions arising from the same probe. Jani was not named in the main charge sheet, but was brought in later in a separate case through statements of co-accused.

The case against Jani stemmed from a small-quantity seizure, where an accused was allegedly found with about 4 grams of cocaine. Investigators expanded the probe through disclosure statements, leading to successive arrests and recoveries which revealed a broader “chain” of drug transactions.

The special court, however, allowed Jani’s discharge plea, saying the case “rests upon his own statement, which is not admissible in the eyes of law”. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tofan Singh case, which clarified that statements recorded by NCB officers under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be treated as confessional evidence in court. Accordingly, statements of the accused and co-accused, on which the prosecution relied, could not be used to establish guilt, the court said. The prosecution too conceded that, in view of this position, statements of co-accused recorded under section 67 had “no bearing on the fate of the case”.

The court also found a complete absence of independent incriminating material against Jani. There was no recovery from him, no witness linking him to any transaction, nor was he named in the statements of key accused in the case.

The court noted that the primary accused, from whom contraband was allegedly seized, had referred to other customers and contacts but “nowhere whisper[ed] the name of the applicant”. A witness statement recorded before a magistrate similarly referred to another accused, “and not the applicant”.

The prosecution’s attempt to rely on Jani’s alleged criminal antecedents was also rejected. The court held that the material cited merely showed that the investigating officer had sought a statement recorded in another case, and “it does not mean that the applicant is arrayed as accused therein… there is no substance” in the claim of antecedents.

Jani, who had been charged under multiple provisions of the NDPS Act including allegedly financing illicit traffic, now stands discharged. The case will, however, continue against the remaining accused.