<p>The Karnataka High Court has reserved orders in bail pleas filed on behalf Kannada Actresses, Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani along with 3 others.</p>.<p><br>The orders were reserved by Justice <strong>Sreenivas Harish Kumar</strong> on Saturday. <br></p>.<p>Senior Advocate <strong>Hasmath Pasha </strong>appearing for Sanjjanaa argued that the prosecution had not yet determined/found out the quantity of drugs that had been allegedly consumed by any of the accused persons and more specifically, Sanjjanaa.</p>.<p>It was further said that unless the quantity is determined, bail cannot be denied.</p>.<p>The aspects of "indefiniteness of quantity of drugs" and offences involving "commercial quantity of drugs" that were highlighted by the Bombay High Court while <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/no-special-liability-or-privilege-for-celebrities-bombay-hc-rhea-chakraborty">granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty</a> were also relied upon by Pasha. </p>.No special liability or privilege for celebrities and role models before court of law: Bombay HC in Rhea Chakraborty verdict.<p>It was further contended that at most, they were only consumers and can be awarded only with a punishment of 6 months or fine or both. The question of punishment for 10 years to 20 years does not even arise, said Pasha.</p>.<p>It was further informed that Sanjjanaa had been in custody for more than 50 days. The Court was further informed that blood as well as hair samples of the accused persons were collected. Even after seizure of their electronic gadgets and a thorough search of their houses, no incriminating evidence was found. The same argument was raised by counsel appearing for Dwivedi as well. </p>.Sandalwood Drug Scandal: Aditya Alva moves Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of FIR, Ragini Dwivedi files bail application .<p>If granted bail, there would be no likelihood of tampering with the evidence, assured the counsel appearing for both the actresses. </p>.<p>On behalf of Dwivedi, it was contended that since the seizure or the possession of the drugs was not specifically from her, the same could not be attributed to her. </p>.<p>The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) contended that since the investigation is pending, it would be appropriate if the accused persons remained in custody. </p>.<p>It was further argued that in the instant matter, there is a case of "real conspiracy" between many accused persons and if released on bail, there is a likelihood of them tampering with the evidence.</p>.[Breaking] Sandalwood Drug Scandal: Special Court denies bail to Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani.<p>Recently, a Special NDPS Court had refused to <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/sandalwood-drug-scandal-special-court-denies-bail-ragini-dwivedi-sanjjanaa-galrani">grant bail </a>to Kannada actresses Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani.</p>.<p>Both actresses were taken into custody based on a <em>suo motu</em> case registered at the Cottonpet police station for allegedly consuming and supplying banned narcotic substances at parties and events that they used to organise.</p>.<p>They were booked under the provisions of the <em>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act</em>, 1985 (NDPS Act), and the <em>Indian Penal Code.</em></p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court has reserved orders in bail pleas filed on behalf Kannada Actresses, Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani along with 3 others.</p>.<p><br>The orders were reserved by Justice <strong>Sreenivas Harish Kumar</strong> on Saturday. <br></p>.<p>Senior Advocate <strong>Hasmath Pasha </strong>appearing for Sanjjanaa argued that the prosecution had not yet determined/found out the quantity of drugs that had been allegedly consumed by any of the accused persons and more specifically, Sanjjanaa.</p>.<p>It was further said that unless the quantity is determined, bail cannot be denied.</p>.<p>The aspects of "indefiniteness of quantity of drugs" and offences involving "commercial quantity of drugs" that were highlighted by the Bombay High Court while <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/no-special-liability-or-privilege-for-celebrities-bombay-hc-rhea-chakraborty">granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty</a> were also relied upon by Pasha. </p>.No special liability or privilege for celebrities and role models before court of law: Bombay HC in Rhea Chakraborty verdict.<p>It was further contended that at most, they were only consumers and can be awarded only with a punishment of 6 months or fine or both. The question of punishment for 10 years to 20 years does not even arise, said Pasha.</p>.<p>It was further informed that Sanjjanaa had been in custody for more than 50 days. The Court was further informed that blood as well as hair samples of the accused persons were collected. Even after seizure of their electronic gadgets and a thorough search of their houses, no incriminating evidence was found. The same argument was raised by counsel appearing for Dwivedi as well. </p>.Sandalwood Drug Scandal: Aditya Alva moves Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of FIR, Ragini Dwivedi files bail application .<p>If granted bail, there would be no likelihood of tampering with the evidence, assured the counsel appearing for both the actresses. </p>.<p>On behalf of Dwivedi, it was contended that since the seizure or the possession of the drugs was not specifically from her, the same could not be attributed to her. </p>.<p>The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) contended that since the investigation is pending, it would be appropriate if the accused persons remained in custody. </p>.<p>It was further argued that in the instant matter, there is a case of "real conspiracy" between many accused persons and if released on bail, there is a likelihood of them tampering with the evidence.</p>.[Breaking] Sandalwood Drug Scandal: Special Court denies bail to Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani.<p>Recently, a Special NDPS Court had refused to <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/sandalwood-drug-scandal-special-court-denies-bail-ragini-dwivedi-sanjjanaa-galrani">grant bail </a>to Kannada actresses Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani.</p>.<p>Both actresses were taken into custody based on a <em>suo motu</em> case registered at the Cottonpet police station for allegedly consuming and supplying banned narcotic substances at parties and events that they used to organise.</p>.<p>They were booked under the provisions of the <em>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act</em>, 1985 (NDPS Act), and the <em>Indian Penal Code.</em></p>
