Demolishing the statement by the Bureau of Narcotics Control (NCB) that actress Rhea Chakraborty was an active member of a drug syndicate, the Bombay High Court observed on Wednesday that she was not part of drug traffickers.
“She is not part of the drug traffickers. She has not sent the drugs supposedly acquired by her to another person to obtain monetary or other benefits”, observed Judge Sarang V Kotwal, while granting him bail after a month of custody in the case registered by the NCB for allegedly procuring drugs to his ex-partner and late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
In arresting her on September 8, the NCB had called her “an active member of the drug syndicate related to the supply of drugs.”
The Superior Court found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Rhea was not guilty of any offense punishable under section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) or any offense involving commercial quantities.
Article 27A of the law refers to the crime of “financing illicit trade” and “harboring” a person engaged in that trade. This is a serious crime, punishable by a minimum of ten years in prison, and is mentioned as one of the crimes in article 37, which deals with the rigors of the granting of bail.
The Court observed that simply giving money to another would not mean “financing illicit trade”.
“… simply providing money for a particular transaction or other transactions will not be the financing of that activity. The financing should be interpreted as providing funds to make that particular activity operational or to maintain it. It is the direct financial support or indirectly is the cause of the existence of said illicit traffic The word “financing” would necessarily refer to some activities that involve illegal trade or business.
The accusations against the applicant of spending money on the purchase of medicines for Sushant Singh Rajput will not therefore mean that she has financed the illicit traffic “, He observed the HC.
The Court also dismissed the claim that Rhea had “sheltered” Sushant Singh Rajput.
“In the present case, there was no criminal or FIR case pending against Sushant Singh Rajput. He was residing in his own home and was spending for his own food and other necessities. At that time, he had no fear of any arrest. Therefore , the applicant’s act cannot be extended to attract the charge of harboring Sushant Singh Rajput “, Judge Kotwal observed in this regard.
The Court also commented on the anomaly of invoking Section 27A against Rhea, as the alleged beneficiary of the transaction, Sushant, is only liable for a minor punishment. That too, you can avoid this by volunteering for rehabilitation under Section 64A.
“By applying NCB’s interpretation of Section 27A, if someone else, such as a friend or relative, pays money for such use, the person actually using the drug can be punished for only up to one year or can get immunity under Section 64-A of the NDPS Act; but the person who gives money to buy that drug faces the prospect of spending twenty years in jail. This is very disproportionate and would be extremely unreasonable. “ He observed the HC.
After holding that the offense in Section 27A will not be applicable against Rhea, the Court proceeded to consider the next applicable provision, Section 8 (c). In this regard, the Court noted that the NCB has not recovered any contraband from it and that there was no allegation of involvement of commercial quantities.
“The investigation did not reveal any recovery of either the Applicant or the Sushant Singh Rajput house. It is their own case that the drugs have already been used and therefore there was no recovery. In that case, there is nothing at this stage to show that the Applicant had committed an offense related to the commercial amount of contraband. The material at the top shows that it has committed a crime related to contraband, but the crucial element of incurring the rigors of Section 37 regarding the trade quantity“added the Court in this context.
The Court also noted that celebrities and role models do not incur any special liability or enjoy any special privileges before the Court of Justice.
The Court also noted that there was no basis for the Special Court order denying his bail on the grounds that it could destroy evidence.
“The scholarly Special Judge has observed that the Claimant can alert others and the evidence can be destroyed by them. There is no basis for such an observation. It is also important to note that when the Claimant was presented to the Court for her first referral, the investigating agency she did not request her custody. That is, they are satisfied with her interrogation and she had cooperated in that investigation “, said the HC.
However, the court rejected Rhea’s brother Showik Chakraborty’s request for bail.
Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant, Sushant’s domestic helpers, arrested for obtaining drugs for their master, were also released on bail by the court today.
Rhea is also accused of being an accessory to the suicide of Sushant Singh Rajput, which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by order of the Supreme Court.
Click here to download the order
.
