Actress Rhea Chakroborty and her brother Showik approached the special court under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) to request bail, as their allegations were rejected by the trial court on Wednesday.
Showik Chakraborty, Sushant’s house manager Samuel Miranda and Sushant’s domestic helper Dipesh Sawant and Bandra residents Zaid Vilatra, Abdel Basit Parihar, who were arrested for allegedly selling drugs, were brought before a court court that sent them into custody until Sept. 23, NCB officials said. .
All have requested bail, but the matter has been postponed until tomorrow.
In her guilty plea, Rhea has declared that she is innocent and is falsely implicated in the case. Furthermore, it is alleged that Rhea “was compelled to make self-incriminating confessions and, by her September 8 request, the applicant has formally retracted all such incriminating confessions.”
The plaintiff’s bail statement was also not accepted by the court after the prosecution raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear his statement.
Questioned for three days by all levels of NCB officers from September 6-8, Rhea was formally arrested Tuesday. “There was not a single female officer who questioned the present applicant as required by law. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Barse VS State Maharashtra, has held that the interrogation of women should be carried out only in the presence of a female police officer / sheriff, ”the bail request reads, noting that the agency failed. to comply with the guidelines of the supreme court.
The sister-brother duo has been booked under Section 27 A of the NDPS Act, which provides for punishment for financing illicit trafficking and sheltering offenders. According to the provisions, if convicted, the two can face a prison term of not less than 10 years and can also be fined 2 lakh rupees. They have been arrested for allegedly arranging a narcotic substance for actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
After the trial court rejected the bail statements, the 28-year-old’s lawyer, Satish Maneshinde, approached the special court. The pleas are scheduled for a hearing on Thursday, where the investigating agency should present its answer to the special court.
The defense has raised the issue of the applicability of the charges in Section 27A of the NDPS Act against the two. In Rhea’s plea, the defense has stated: “The charges against the current defendant, at best, would constitute a case of purchasing a small quantity of drug that is in essence a bail offense. There is not a shred of evidence linking the applicant to the financing of illicit trafficking or the protection of an offender, and therefore the ingredients of Section 27A of the NDPS Act are not established in the current facts and circumstances. ” .
“The defendant (NCB) is silent on the amount of funding, the amount of drugs and the type of drugs allegedly purchased and financed by the present applicant. The defendant’s case in the lay term is that the plaintiff would coordinate the delivery of the drugs for her then boyfriend and occasionally pay for them herself. In essence, her supposed role, if any, is to purchase a small quantity of drugs for her then-boyfriend, which would come directly within the purview of Section 20 (b) (ii) (A) (produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, buys, transports, imports interstate, exports interstate or consumes cannabis,) which is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of up to one year or a fine or both, ”reads the bail statement presented by the attorney for Rhea.
The defense alleged that although the role attributed to Rhea and her brother Showik is identical to that of another defendant in the case, Kaizan Ebrahim, NCB selectively invoked the Section 27 A charges only against Rhea and Showik.
“Co-defendant Kaizan was in fact released on cash provisional bail on the first day of his pretrial detention by the trial court,” the defense stated in Rhea’s bail statement, adding that the agency did not even asked for their custody.
The defense has cited several Supreme Court rulings to support its claim and stated that in a case in which the person is found to have been booked on bail, they are entitled to bail.
.
