Sushant Singh Rajput case: Bombay high court grants bail to Rhea Chakraborty | Mumbai news - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

Sushant Singh Rajput case: Bombay high court grants bail to Rhea Chakraborty

Mumbai | ByKanchan Chaudhari, Mumbai
Oct 08, 2020 06:02 AM IST

A single bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal granted bail to Rhea, who walked out of Byculla jail at 5.30pm, on a personal bond of Rs1 lakh and one or two sureties of the same amount.

Thirty days after actor Rhea Chakraborty was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) over drug-related charges in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case, the Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday granted bail to the 28-year-old actor, negating all major allegations levelled by the agency, including being a “part of a drug syndicate” or “harbouring, financing” drug activities.

Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) arrested actor Rhea Chakraborty on September 8.(PTI)
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) arrested actor Rhea Chakraborty on September 8.(PTI)

A single bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal granted bail to Rhea, who walked out of Byculla jail at 5.30pm, on a personal bond of Rs1 lakh and one or two sureties of the same amount. She has, however, been granted time to furnish sureties, paving the way for the actor to come out of jail immediately.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

By way of bail conditions, HC has directed her to surrender her passport to the investigation officer and not to leave India. She has also been restrained from leaving the jurisdiction of the special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) court in Mumbai without submitting itinerary to the special court, and asked to attend the NCB office on first Monday of every month.

However, Justice Kotwal rejected the bail pleas of Chakraborty’s brother Showik, observing that he “appeared to be an important link in the chain of drug dealers” and alleged drug peddler Abdel Basit Parihar, while granting bail to Rajput’s domestic aides Dipesh Sawant and Samuel Miranda.

On September 8, NCB, after three days of intense questioning, had arrested Chakraborty claiming that she was part of a drug syndicate, and that she financed to procure drugs for her boyfriend and late actor Sushant Singh Rajput under sections 8(C), read with 20(b)(ii) (produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, ware-house, use, consume, import, export or trans-ship cannabis other than ganja), 27A (financing illicit trafficking into drugs and harbouring offenders), 28 (attempt to commit offences under the Act) and 29 (abetment) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

“I am unable to agree with the submission that giving money to another for consuming drug would mean encouraging such a habit, and would mean ‘financing’ or ‘harbouring’, as envisaged under section 27A of the NDPS Act,” noted Justice Kotwal in his 70-page order.

The allegations and material against Chakraborty are that on some occasions she had used her own money in procuring drugs. She facilitated procuring of drugs through her brother. For that purpose, employees of Rajput were also used. “As discussed earlier, her acts would not fall under Section 27A of the NDPS Act,” the order further noted, while it went on detail that the main section which could be attracted in Rhea’s case is violation of Section 8(C) of the NDPS Act, which is made punishable under Section 20 or Section 22.

“In that case, it is necessary for the investigating agency to show that her activities or contravention involved commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance,” noted Justice Kotwal.

The investigation did not reveal any recovery either from Rhea or from the house of Rajput. “It is their own case that the drugs were already consumed and hence there was no recovery. In that case, there is nothing at this stage to show that the applicant (Rhea) had committed any offence involving commercial quantity of contraband. The material at the highest shows that she has committed an offence involving contraband, but, the crucial element of incurring rigours of section 37 in respect of commercial quantity is missing,” observed justice Kotwal.

“Therefore, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of any offence punishable under sections 19, 24 or 27A or any other offence involving commercial quantity. There are no other criminal antecedents against her. She is not part of the chain of drug dealers. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary or other benefits. Since she has no criminal antecedents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” said Kotwal while granting Rhea bail.

The bail order went on to describe the importance, relevance and reasoning behind the incorporation of section 27A, stating that the section as introduced by the legislation “India was facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spill-over from such traffic was causing problems of abuse and addiction. To control the traffic in illicit drugs as the spill over from such traffic was causing problems of abuse and addiction, a separate section 27A was introduced to check these activities, which were the root cause of illicit traffic. “Financing” and “harbouring” such activities were, therefore, specifically mentioned under Section 27A.”

Section 27A is of significance because it is independent of the quantity involved. There is no mention of activities involving small, intermediate or commercial quantity in section 27 A, observed Justice Kotwal and noted that it has hence necessary to consider what “financing” and “harbouring” meant.

The financing and harbouring parts are specifically made punishable under Section 27A. Justice Kotwal noted that neither “financing” nor “harbouring” was defined under the NDPS Act, and the court chose to derive the meaning of “financing” through Concise Oxford Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary and found, “The allegations against the Applicant (Rhea) of spending money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput will not, therefore, mean that she had financed illicit traffic.”

While it chose a Supreme Court order and Black’s Law Dictionary to define “harbouring”, the court found that Rhea’s act could not be termed as “financing” or “harbouring”. Section 52-A of IPC can be used for a limited purpose as mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The key words in that Section are “to evade apprehension”, noted Justice Kotwal and added, “This only means that first of all there has to be another offender who has committed the offence. The person who is charged with harbouring the main offender should have supplied him with shelter, food etc.; and then the next requirement is that that second person should have done this to prevent the main offender’s apprehension.”

In the present case, no criminal case or FIR was pending against Rajput. He was residing in his own house and was spending for his own food and other necessities. At that point of time, he had no apprehension of any arrest. “Therefore, the act on the part of the applicant (Chakraborty) cannot be stretched to attract the allegation of harbouring Rajput,” observed the single bench.

Kotwal also refused to agree with the additional solicitor general Anil Singh who argued that “the celebrities and role models should be treated harshly so that it sets an example for the young generation and they do not get encouraged to commit such offences.”

“I do not agree. Everybody is equal before law. No celebrity or role model enjoys any special privilege before the court of law,” observed Justice Kotwal, while adding, “Similarly, such person also does not incur any special liability when he faces law in the courts. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits, irrespective of the status of the accused.”

The single bench also noted that the learned Special Judge under NDPS had observed that Chakraborty may alert others and evidence can be destroyed by them. “There is no basis for such observation,” observed justice Kotwal and went to write in the order that, “It is also important to note that when the applicant was produced before the court for her first remand, the investigating agency did not seek her custody. That means, they are satisfied with her interrogation and she had cooperated in that investigation.”

After the order was pronounced, additional solicitor general Anil Singh sought stay of the order for at least one week. “This matter involves number of questions of law and therefore we want to test this order (before the Supreme Court),” said Singh.

Justice Kotwal flatly rejected the request. “What do you want to test,” the judge asked Singh. “I have accepted your contention and held that all offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable,” the judge added while rejecting the request.

After Singh’s request, HC ordered Chakraborty to attend the nearest police station every day for ten days, so that she will easily available for re-arrest in case NCB succeeds in its challenge to the bail order.

Meanwhile, the judge said that allegations that Showik was in direct contact with drug dealers Ike Abdel Basit Parihar, a last year student of architecture, whose bail application was also rejected on Wednesday, and at lease three others.

“Monetary transactions are reflected in his account. The applicant (Showik) was facilitating procurement of drugs from one party, for supplying them to Rajput” said HC. “He was clearly involved in illicit trafficking or illegal trade of drugs. The applicant’s case will have to be distinguished from that of a consumer or an end purchaser.” Showik was arrested on September 4

“We are delighted by the order of the Hon’ble Bombay HC, granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty. Truth and justice have prevailed and ultimately the submissions on facts and law have been accepted by justice Sarang V Kotwal,” said advocate Satish Maneshinde, who represented Rhea.

“The arrest and custody of Rhea was totally unwarranted and beyond the reach of law. The hounding and witch hunt by three central agencies .. the CBI, ED and NCB of Rhea should come to an end” said Maneshinde. “We remain committed to Truth. Satya Meva Jayate.”

Rajput, 34, was found hanging at his apartment in suburban Bandra on June 14. After a case of alleged abetment of suicide was registered against Rhea by Rajput’s parents, a parallel probe into alleged drug procurement by her also began on the basis of her WhatsApp chats.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 29, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On