MUMBAI: Granting bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty on Wednesday, Bombay high court directed her to surrender her passport to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). It said she could not leave the country without a nod from the Narcotic Drugs and Pyschotropic Substances (NDPS) court, which on September 11 had rejected her bail plea. She must also visit the NCB office once a month for an hour for the next six months.
There were five bail applications which Justice Sarang Kotwal had reserved for orders. And he did not take long to hear them. Delivering them via video link, he first said the bail pleas of Abdel Parihar, a 23-year-old Bandra resident accused of being a peddler, and Showik Chakraborty, Rhea’s brother, stand “rejected.’’ By then the mood had turned tense and the advocates’ bated breath palpable. When the judge mentioned Rhea and her application number, the silence was almost audible. He then said Rhea was directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs 1 lakh. On her lawyer Satish Maneshinde’s request citing the pandemic situation, the HC allowed her to furnish cash bail to ensure an immediate exit from Byculla women’s jail.
Rhea Chakraborty’s release could not have come a day too soon. She should not have had to go through the ordeal of spending a month in jail in the first place. Various courts have been reluctant to grant bail where there is evidence of commercial quantity being transacted; but in this case, nothing was found. As the Bombay high court has correctly observed, it would be unreasonable if Rhea, given the charges applied against her by the NCB, were to get 20 years in jail and the person she procured drugs for was to get one year instead.The HC has also rejected charges of ‘financing’ and said Rhea was not part of a drug cartel. The question that arises then is why she has been booked for offences under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, which is meant to curb illicit trafficking and which requires courts to be satisfied on multiple counts before they release an accused on bail.
The NCB counsel, additional solicitor general Anil Singh, took a moment and sought a stay on her bail for a week to enable the agency to go in appeal to the Supreme Court. However, Justice Kotwal said, “I have imposed sufficiently stringent bail conditions’’ on her and added one more that she has to, for the first 10 days, report daily at a nearest police station from 11 am to 5 pm “to show her availability.”
Bail for one sibling and jail for the other may have left the Chakraborty family with mixed feelings. But a sense of relief was evident, soon after the release order was signed, Rhea’s lawyer Satish Maneshinde said, “She will spend her night after a month in her own bed.’’ When asked about her reaction to the order, Maneshinde said, “Rhea was delighted to see me and said truth has prevailed.” She was released from jail at 5pm.
Underlying the court’s decision to grant Rhea bail was its observation that a distinction ought to be made between traffickers who profited from deals and others who are not “main offenders” in cases involving drug offences.
The judge agreed with the lawyer for Parihar, Taraq Sayed, that Section 27A (for financing illicit traffic) under the Narcotic Drugs and Pyschotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which attracts 10-20 years in prison, “has to be interpreted harmoniously’’ to ensure that it curbs drug cartels without severe punishment to others not involved with the trade. The judge said the law’s interpretation should not be at odds with a sentencing structure based on drug quantity.
The HC did not accept the NCB’s argument that giving money for supplying drugs to actor Sushant Singh Rajput would attract Section 27A which is usually invoked for ‘financing’ drug deals.
“It is highly disproportionate and extremely unreasonable” that the person who consumed drugs (Sushant) would have got one year in jail…or get immunity from trial, but (one) who gives money, be it a friend or a relative, for the drug faces the prospect of…20 years in jail,” said Justice Sarang Kotwal in a 70-page order.
In another important finding, HC held that all offences under NDPS Act are ‘non-bailable’ though for those with lesser punishment, the rigours of a strict bail provision would not apply. In other words, for any offence, even involving small amounts, only a court can grant bail, not police or the special agency.
Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/how-can-drug-user-get-1-year-and-one-who-gives-money-get-20years-bombay-hc/articleshow/78545348.cms