On rejecting actor Rhea Chakraborty’s bail plea on September 11 , the special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act court said, “The investigation is at preliminary stage and if the accused is released on bail then she will tamper the prosecution evidence.”
Also Read | Coerced to make self-incriminating confessions: Rhea in plea
The order was passed on September 11. However, the reasoning behind the rejection of bail was made available on Tuesday.
In the 16-page order, the court recorded, “Rhea and late Sushant Singh Rajput were in leaving-in relationship. It is alleged that she procured drug for Sushant Singh Rajput by financing, them for that she had asked her brother Showik to arrange for the drug and for them drug were arranged from the accused Zaid Vilatra and Abdel Basit. NCB had recovered WhatsApp chats and other electronic evidence. Some amount is also transferred via credit card of accused. Further, in the present crime there is recovery of commercial quantity of LSD from accused Anuj Keshwani. The investigation is at preliminary stage, therefore, from the available record, it can not be said that there are no reasonable grounds to connect the Rhea.”
The court also said, “According to the prosecution Rhea has taken the names of other persons. The investigation in respect of those persons is in process. If she is released on bail then she will alert those persons and they will destroy the evidence.”
Chakraborty has been charged under Section 8(c) (produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import); 20(b)(ii) (punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis where such contravention relates to small quantity, involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, involves commercial quantity); 22 (punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances); 27A (punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders); 28 (punishment for attempts to commit offences); and 29 (punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.
Advocate Satish Maneshinde appearing for Ms. Chakraborty on September 10 argued, “Only 59 grams of ganja was recovered and the quantity is smaller quantity. The prosecution agency has incorrectly applied Section 27A of the NDPS Act, in view the bar, accused to release on bail Section 37 (offences to be cognisable and non-bailable) of the NDPS Act. Merely sale and purchase of drug does not amount as illicit traffic. There are no allegations of harbouring offender against the accused.”
Sushant’s housekeeper Dipesh Sawant held in drug case
However, Special Public Prosecutor Atul Sarpande, representing the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), said, “The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 27-A is not less then 10 years and may extend to 20 years. Thus, the offence is non-bailable. Even to substantiate the charge under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, no particular quantity of drug is required, only prosecution has to show that accused has illegally financed to drug trafficking. There is ample evidence on record to show that accused is involved in illicit trafficking of drug.”
Special Judge G.B. Gurao said, “There is embargo to grant bail to the person accused of an offence under Section 27A punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders of NDPS.”
