REASONS AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON GRANT OF BAIL TO RHEA CHAKRABORTY BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(C) READ WITH 20(B)(II), 22, 27A, 28, 29 AND 30 OF THE NARCOTICS DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “NDPS ACT”).
Rhea Chakraborty
vs. Union of India and ors.(2020) 10 BOM CK 0011
A Single Judge of the
Bombay High Coury while granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of
the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 noted that the punishment
for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, as mentioned
under Section 27, is maximum one year or imposition of fine which may extend to
Rs.20,000/-. By applying the interpretation of Section 27A by NCB, if some
other person like a friend or a relative pays money for such consumption, then
the person who actually consumes the drug can be punished only upto one year or
can get immunity under Section 64-A of NDPS Act; but the person who gives money
for purchasing that drug faces the prospect of spending twenty years in jail.
This is highly disproportionate and would be extremely unreasonable. The Single
Judge further noted that Section 27A cannot be interpreted in this manner.
Therefore, Section 27A will have to be interpreted harmoniously with other
Sections as well as Objects and Reasons of the Act so that it attacks the
illicit drug trafficking, but, does not extend to sentencing another accused
more severely than the main offender. The Court did not agree with the
submission that giving money to another for consuming drug would mean
encouraging such habit and would mean “financing” or “harbouring” as envisaged
under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. The Court furher noted that the allegations
and material against the present Applicant 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 Sushant Singh Rajput were
also used. As discussed earlier, her acts would not fall under Section 27A of
the NDPS Act. The main Section which could be attracted in her 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. The investigation did
not reveal any recovery either from the Applicant or from the house of Sushant
Singh 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 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. Therefore the Court
was 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. The Court did not agree with the arguments of learned ASG 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. The Court was of the view that everybody is equal before law. No
celebrity or role model enjoys any special privilege before the Court of law.
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 learned Special Judge has
observed that the Applicant may alert others and evidence can be destroyed by
them. There is no basis for such observation. 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. Based on
all this discussion the Bail Application of Rhea Chakraborty was allowed. However,
considering the background of the case, stringent conditions are imposed and
the following order was passed :- i. In connection with C.R. No.16/2020
registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai, the Applicant is directed
to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount. ii. The
Applicant shall deposit her passport with the investigating agency. iii. The
Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission from the Special
Judge for NDPS at Greater Mumbai. iv. If the Applicant has to go out of Greater
Mumbai, she shall inform the Investigating Officer; and shall give her
itinerary to the Investigating Officer in advance. v. The Applicant shall
attend the office of investigating agency on first Monday of every month
between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. to mark her presence, for a period of six
months. vi. The Applicant shall attend all the dates in the Court unless
prevented by any reasonable cause. vii. The Applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence or investigation of the case. viii. Criminal Bail Application stands
disposed of accordingly.
Comments
Post a Comment