No special liability or privilege for celebrities and role models before court of law: Bombay HC in Rhea Chakraborty verdict

While granting bail to Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty in the drug case she was implicated in, the Bombay High Court noted in its judgment today that celebrities and role models do not have special liabilities or privileges before a court of law.

. Justice Sarang V Kotwal made the observation in response to a contention made by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh that celebrities and role models should be treated harshly so that it sets an example for the young generation and deters them from committing similar offences.

. The judgment states:

. "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." Bombay High Court . The Court had reserved its verdict in the matter on September 29, after hearing the parties at length.

In the judgment pronounced today, the Court delved into each of the issues brought up during the hearings.

. The Court accepted that the subject matter of the investigation conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) is different from the investigation into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. The judgment states,

. "During the course of this investigation, incidentally it was found that Sushant Singh Rajput used to procure drugs. For that purpose, many others helped him. This investigation led to arrest of many other dealers in illicit traffic of drugs who are unconnected with the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the submissions of Mr. Maneshinde that NCB is not empowered to investigate into this offence, which is a totally different subject matter."

. After referring to judgments on the topic and the amendments to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Court noted that. initially, there was no mention in the Act itself as to whether the offences would be bailable or non-bailable. However, amendments to the Act in 1988 and 2001 gave a clearer picture, the Court noted.

Further, it was noted that the position has been completely clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh . I n this judgment, it was held that Section 37 of the Act makes it clear that all offences non-bailable, and also lays down stringent conditions for grant of bail.

The Court thus held,

. "If the accused claims bail as of right in case of possession of small quantity then no investigation can be carried out to find the source and trade of the contraband. This defeats the object of the Act. Considering all this discussion, I am of the firm view that the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh (supra) are binding and all offences under the NDPS Act are non- bailable." Bombay High Court . One of the charges against Rhea was the offence under Section 27A , which provides punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.

. The Court went on to discuss the scope of Section 27A and the phrases "financing" and "harbouring" illicit drug trafficking. On reading the provision in harmony with the other sections of the Act, the Court ultimately decided that simply providing money for a particular transaction will not amount to financing of that activity. Financing means to provide funds for either making that particular activity operational or for sustaining it, the Court held.

. "The allegations against the Applicant of spending money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput will not, therefore, mean that she had financed illicit traffic." Bombay High Court . As regards the offence of "harbouring" offenders under Section 27A, after considering definitions and interpretations of the term in the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held,

. "The person who is charged with harbouring that main offender should have supplied him with shelter, food etc.; and then the next requirement is that that second person should have done this to prevent the main offender’s apprehension. In the present case, no criminal case or FIR was pending against Sushant Singh Rajput. He was residing in his own house and was spending for his own food and other necessities. At that point of time, he had no apprehension of any arrest. Therefore, the act on the part of the Applicant cannot be stretched to attract the allegation of harbouring Sushant Singh Rajput."

. Observing that Rhea was not guilty of Section 27A or any offence involving commercial quantity of drugs, the Court noted,

. "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." Bombay High Court . On these grounds, among others, the Court granted bail to Rhea, on the following conditions:

. 1. She must furnish a PR bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with sureties.

2. She must deposit her passport with the NCB and not leave the country unless she takes permission from the Special NDPS Court, Greater Mumbai.

3. If she is going out of Greater Mumbai, then she must inform the investigating officer and give her itinerary.

4. She must also attend all her court hearings and report to the investigative agency on the first Monday of every month for 6 months from release.

5. She must not tamper with evidence or the investigation.

. [Read the judgment here]

No special liability or privilege for celebrities and role models before court of law: Bombay HC in Rhea Chakraborty verdict

Neha Joshi

Related Stories