A Special Court in Mumbai on Wednesday rejected the bail application filed by Siddharth Pithani, former roommate of Bollywood actor late Sushant Singh Rajput in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act..Pithani, a prime suspect in the case, had been absconding for long. He was staying in the same flat as Rajput and was one of the first persons to see Rajput dead.He had been summoned thrice before he was finally nabbed from Hyderabad on May 26, 2021..Pithani was the charged for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.After obtaining a transit warrant from a Hyderabad court, Pithani was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai who remanded him to police custody and to judicial custody. Pithani was recently granted temporary bail for a period of 15 days to attend his wedding..In his application filed through Advocate Tareq Sayyed, Pithani pleaded that he had been falsely framed in the matter as it was an admitted fact that no contraband was found in his possession.Further, there was neither any incriminating material to suggest that he was involved in dealing of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance..He contended that the case by NCB was based on a statement made by the co-accused in the case, Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant who claimed Pithani had purchased ganja/ weed to smoke. This statement had also been retracted by them on the first day of remand.Pithani claimed that the co-accused in the case had been released on bail irrespective of whether they had been found in possession of any commercial quantity of drugs or not..In his bail application, Pithani also relied upon the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the bail application filed by Rhea Chakraborty to contend that the allegation of buying and selling of ganja does not fall within the scope of Section 27A (financing drugs or substances or harbouring offenders) of the NDPS Act..Opposing the bail application, Advocate Advait Sethna for NCB submitted that there was enough incriminating material recovered from Pithani's cell phone and laptop which showed that he used to arrange and consume narcotic drugs and substances in large quantity during his stay with Rajput. .Sethna argued that the fact that Pithani arranged for the drugs made his role pivotal in the commission of the offences and clearly made out a case against him. The incriminating material/ photos/ videos recovered and his voluntary statement make Pithani liable under provisions of the NDPS Act..Sethna argued that Pithani could not claim the ground of parity as his role was entirely different from the other co-accused in the case. Hence Pithani deserved no indulgence on such ground. .Sethna informed the Court that NCB was interrogating certain persons named by Pithani, which seemed to be important leads in the matter and also gave distinct details which will be crucial for a proper investigation. "Considering the sensitivity of the matter, enlarging the Applicant on bail who is knowing such persons personally and has knowledge of the information, may not be prudent in the given facts and circumstances," Sethna submitted. .After hearing both parties briefly, Special NDPS Court judge VV Vidwans dismissed the bail application.
A Special Court in Mumbai on Wednesday rejected the bail application filed by Siddharth Pithani, former roommate of Bollywood actor late Sushant Singh Rajput in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act..Pithani, a prime suspect in the case, had been absconding for long. He was staying in the same flat as Rajput and was one of the first persons to see Rajput dead.He had been summoned thrice before he was finally nabbed from Hyderabad on May 26, 2021..Pithani was the charged for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.After obtaining a transit warrant from a Hyderabad court, Pithani was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai who remanded him to police custody and to judicial custody. Pithani was recently granted temporary bail for a period of 15 days to attend his wedding..In his application filed through Advocate Tareq Sayyed, Pithani pleaded that he had been falsely framed in the matter as it was an admitted fact that no contraband was found in his possession.Further, there was neither any incriminating material to suggest that he was involved in dealing of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance..He contended that the case by NCB was based on a statement made by the co-accused in the case, Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant who claimed Pithani had purchased ganja/ weed to smoke. This statement had also been retracted by them on the first day of remand.Pithani claimed that the co-accused in the case had been released on bail irrespective of whether they had been found in possession of any commercial quantity of drugs or not..In his bail application, Pithani also relied upon the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the bail application filed by Rhea Chakraborty to contend that the allegation of buying and selling of ganja does not fall within the scope of Section 27A (financing drugs or substances or harbouring offenders) of the NDPS Act..Opposing the bail application, Advocate Advait Sethna for NCB submitted that there was enough incriminating material recovered from Pithani's cell phone and laptop which showed that he used to arrange and consume narcotic drugs and substances in large quantity during his stay with Rajput. .Sethna argued that the fact that Pithani arranged for the drugs made his role pivotal in the commission of the offences and clearly made out a case against him. The incriminating material/ photos/ videos recovered and his voluntary statement make Pithani liable under provisions of the NDPS Act..Sethna argued that Pithani could not claim the ground of parity as his role was entirely different from the other co-accused in the case. Hence Pithani deserved no indulgence on such ground. .Sethna informed the Court that NCB was interrogating certain persons named by Pithani, which seemed to be important leads in the matter and also gave distinct details which will be crucial for a proper investigation. "Considering the sensitivity of the matter, enlarging the Applicant on bail who is knowing such persons personally and has knowledge of the information, may not be prudent in the given facts and circumstances," Sethna submitted. .After hearing both parties briefly, Special NDPS Court judge VV Vidwans dismissed the bail application.
