SSR death case: Important questions of law raised in bail plea by Rhea, others in NCB case, says Bombay HC

MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Friday said "important question of law" has been raised in bail pleas filed by three alleged drug peddlers arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) which is probing a drug angle in the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.


Justice Sarang Kotwal said the petitions filed by Abdel Basit Parihar, 23, Rhea Chakraborty’s associate

Samuel Miranda

and Dipesh Sawant,a member of Rajput’s personal staff "hence need to be heard extensively."

On Friday he heard them at length and observed that the issues raised would have an important impact on other cases as well in application of

the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances

(NDPS) Act.

Advocate Taraq Sayed who appeared for Parihar argued essentially that a non-bailable section for offence under section 27A of NDPS which deals with 'financing illicit traffic and harbouring' could not have been invoked against the young Bandra man from whom no recovery was also made. He was only arrested on an alleged statement made by co-accused

Zaid Vilatra

, 20, that Parihar used to procure ganja from him, an act which he allegedly confessed to before the NCB when arrested on September 3. After initial NCB custody, the trio were sent to jail and on September 11, denied bail by a special sessions NDPS court judge.

Advocates Sayed, Subodh Desai for Miranda and Raju Rathod for Sawant all stressed that the trio attracted only bailable offences under NDPS Act as small quantities are allegedly involved. The NCB had however invoked the more stringent offence under section 27A against actor Rhea Chakraborty and her brother Showik as well as Vilatra, which attracts a maximum ten year sentence and a heavy fine.

Section 37 of the Act mentions 'cognizable and non-bailable' offences and says accused for offences of commercial quantity as well as those under section 19 (embezzlement of

opium

) or section 24 (external dealings in narcotic drugs) or section 27 A shall not get bail unless the prosecution is heard and court is satisfied that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe lack of guilt.

Sayed said section 37 has to be analysed as it includes serious offences while small quantities—under NDPS offences are categories and punished based on quantity—attracts upto one year sentence and are bailable.He stressed that 'financing' should mean someone who is not part of sale or purchase of the drug and cannot include someone allegedly buying drug for an addict.

The HC said the definition of 'financing' should be explained by additional solicitor general Anil Singh who appeared for NCB as it felt it was the "crux of the matter," as was the object of the Act to "stop illicit drug traffic."

The ASG will also have to explain object of section 27A introduced in the late 80s and also object of section 37.

The court repeatedly observed verbally the Act aims to deal with very serious issues and drug trafficking cannot be countenanced and the agency is empowered to investigate based on statements recorded by it. The issues raised by the bail will impact other cases too said the HC.

When a defence lawyer suggested that NCB arresting only on statements may open a "pandora’s box", the bench said "Just because there is no recovery doesn’t mean agency cannot be investigating; it can still go after people, the point is someone is manufacturing, they have to rely on statements."

Sayed said 16 persons have been arrested and all "are from good families" but languishing in jail.

Sayed said but the NCB case is that the accused were buying for a consumer who is now no more and hence how will the charge of consumption be proved.

The HC said the ASG would answer all questioned in the NCB reply and observed that it would consider the facts of each bail plea.

The HC said that, "Illicit drug traffic must stop, there is no doubt about it. Thus what agency has to do they can do." It said it has to decide whether the offences against the trio are bailable.