Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik, JJ., found prima facie case against Late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s sister Priyanka Singh.

It may be that the relations between the petitioner and the respondent 2 are strained, but we cannot overlook the serious allegations made in the complaint and materials on record and the fact that the investigation is in progress and same is not yet concluded.

In the present matter, it was stated that the petitioners suffered the untimely and unfortunate demise of their brother Sushant Singh Rajput on 14-06-2020.

Petitioners stated that they find themselves in the midst of controversy as a result of the registration of an impugned FIR based on unfounded allegations, unsubstantiated facts and a misleading complaint filed as a counterblast FIR filed by petitioner’s father against respondent 2.

Petitioners case was that the FIR was registered by respondent 1 on the complaint of Rhea Indrajit Chakraborty (Respondent 2) in a most illegal and arbitrary manner without following the due process of law.

Analysis and Decision

While perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench notes that the present matter relates to the tragic incident in which the Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead at his residence.

Respondent 2 filed a complaint contending that the accused persons conspired with each other and illegally procured false prescription on the letterhead of Government hospital which contained psychotropic substances that are listed in the Schedule of NDPS Act and administered the same to the late actor.

Whether filing of the second FIR or counter-complaint permissible as done by the Respondent 2?

Bench referring to the decision of Supreme Court in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292, found that the filing of the counter-complaint is permissible.

Elaborating the above point in terms of the present matter, Court expressed that:

Supreme Court has laid down that any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code. because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further the complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence, will be prohibited under Section 162 CrPC.

Present Petitioners are not accused in the first FIR.  2nd respondent has filed the 2nd FIR in the nature of counter-complaint in respect of the same incident having different versions of the events which are legally permissible.

Further, the Bench stated that the allegations made in the complaint revealed the exchange of messages between petitioner 1 and late actor regarding the list of medicines. The FIR consisted of the allegations pertaining to the prescription with regard to the various medications controlled under the NDPS Act. Dr Tarun Kumar prescribed medicines which were prohibited from being prescribed electronically for the purpose of anxiety.

The allegation was that the accused prescribed psychotropic substances without any consultation or examination in violation of provisions of the NDPS Act and the Telemedicine Practice Guidelines, 2020.

Bench expressed that the allegations along with other material enclosed prima facie disclose the alleged offences as against the petitioner 1.

It is a well-settled principle of law that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

 Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728, settled the legal position stating that the High Court ought not to interfere with and quash the entire proceedings in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 CrPC when the matter was still at the investigation stage.

In the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, it was held that there is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of very wide amplitude but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

Hence, Court opined that the allegations made in the complaint do constitute a cognizable offence against the petitioner – Priyanka Singh justifying the registration of a case and an investigation thereon.

With regard to petitioner 2, the allegation has been made against her based only on suspicion that the medicine might have been procured by her.

However, the complaint primarily proceeded on the allegation that the banned medicines prescribed by Dr Tarun Kumar were at the behest of petitioner No.1 who was having knowledge that the said banned medicine and heavy doses of medicine may result in a chronic anxiety attack which may damage the health of Sushant Singh Rajput.

While concluding, the Court added that:

FIR registered at the instance of the late actor’s father has already been transferred to the CBI for investigation in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court, and even Senior Advocate for the respondent 3 submitted that so far as FIR lodged by late actor’s father is concerned, the CBI is conducting investigation meticulously and professionally without being hindered by any external factor and would thoroughly look into each and every aspect relating to the death of the late actor in a fair and impartial manner.

Decision

From the reading of the complaint and materials on record, it was seen that the allegations were primarily against petitioner 1 and Dr Tarun Kumar. The FIR appeared to have been registered against the petitioner 2 only on suspicion without attributing specific overt acts qua petitioner 2 that she aided or abetted the alleged act of suicide by the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

Hence, on overall consideration, allegations against petitioner 2 were vague and general and the counter-complaint filed by the respondent 2 qua second petitioner is to be set aside and quashed and so far as petitioner 1 – Priyanka Singh was concerned, no merit was found in the present petition, therefore deserves to be dismissed.

Rejection of this Petition qua petitioner No.1 – Priyanka Singh shall not be construed as an impediment to petitioner No.1 to avail of an appropriate remedy in case Investigating Officer decides to file the chargesheet.[Priyanka Singh v. State of Maharashtra,  2021 SCC OnLine Bom 207, decided on 15-02-2021]


Advocates who appeared in the matter:

Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. M.V. Thorat i/b Mr. M.V. Thorat, for the Petitioners

Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w Ms. Namita Maneshinde, for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Devdatta Kamat, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Deepak Thakre, PP, Mr. S.R.Shinde, APP a/w Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar and Mr. Hemant Shah, for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Anil C.Singh, ASG a/w Mr. Sandesh Patil a/w Mr. D.P. Singh, for Respondent No. 3 – CBI.


Also Read:

Unmasking the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Explainer on certain provisions]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Sarang Kotwal, J., while addressing the bail application filed by Actor Rhea Chakraborty in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case, considered several questions of law in regard to NDPS Act.

The present bail application was in regard to the case registered with Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

ANALYSIS

Counsel for the applicant Satish Maneshinde raised the issue, whether NCB was competent to conduct the investigation. ASG urged that the Supreme Court in  Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar2020 SCC OnLine SC 654 directed that the CBI should investigate any other case registered on the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput and the surrounding circumstances of his unnatural death.

Further, the ASG stated that the investigation conducted by NCB does not relate to the death of Sushant Singh Rajput and the consumption of drugs by the later actor was only part of the investigation. The said investigation ran deep into uncovering a chain of illicit traffic and drugs.

Bench opined that the contentions raised by the ASG have to be accepted and Mr Maneshinde’s submission that NCB is not empowered to investigate are to be declined.

Bail provisions under the NDPS Act are laid under Section 37 of the said Act.

In accordance with the said Section, Court is required to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the relief. Further, the Court should be satisfied about two conditions:

  • Reasonable ground for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence.
  • The applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Bench has decided the present matter based on the guidelines mentioned in the Supreme Courts decision of Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624.

Questions to be decided in the present application:

  • Whether the offences alleged against the Applicant are bailable. This question needs to be decided because the Applicant is claiming her release on bail as a matter of right.
  • If the offences are non-bailable, then, as to whether rigours mentioned in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are applicable.
  • If such rigours are not applicable and if the offences are non-bailable then whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant or refuse bail.

Whether all the offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable?

Applicant’s Counsel stated that the offences involving small quantities of contraband are bailable and he relied on this Court’s decision in Stefan Mueller v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1974.

Court cited the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172, wherein the ambit and scope of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was decided.

In the above decisions of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 the amendment Act of 1988 was considered in detail and in clear terms, it was mentioned with no uncertainty that “Section 37 makes all the offences under the Act to be cognizable and non-bailable and also lays down stringent conditions for grant of bail.”

The above, categorical statement shows that Section 37, makes all offences non-bailable and lays down stringent conditions for grant of bail.

Hence, the High Court in the present matter, stated in view of the above that there is no further scope to argue that only some offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable and other offences where punishment is less than three years are bailable as per Part II of the Schedule of CrPC.

Applicant’s Counsel particularly, Advocate Subodh Desai and Taraq Sayed contended that the above observations were ‘fleeting reference’ and do not have a binding effect.

To the above contention, bench stated that

Even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding on this Court.

Supreme Court’s decision in Municipal Committee v. Hazara Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 794 was referred.

Further, the Court added that the observations in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 are in the nature of ratio decendi and they cannot be termed as fleeting reference.

In the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638,  it was observed that even obiter of Supreme Court is of considerable weight.

Interplay between Sections 27A & 37

Applicant’s counsel raised another issue:

Section 37 indicates that rigours in granting bail are applicable for the offences involving commercial quantity and this concept will apply even to Sections 19, 24 and 27A of NDPS Act if only the offences involve commercial quantity.

Supreme Court in the decision of Union of India v. Niyazuddin Sk., (2018) 13 SCC 738 has enumerated the offences where special rigours apply.

“6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences enumerated under the said section. They are:

  1. In the case of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19,
  2. Under Section 24,
  3. Under Section 27-A and
  4. Of offences involving commercial quantity.”

Hence the Supreme Court observed that there are 4 categories and the offences involving commercial quantity is a separate category that has no direct connection with the earlier 3 categories i.e. Section 19, 24 and 27A.

Scope of Section 27A of the NDPS Act

Section 27A states the Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.

As per NCB, the applicant financed procurement of drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput and harboured him knowing that he was consuming drugs and therefore she has committed offence punishable under Section 27A.

Legislature wanted to attack the basic cause of illicit traffic o drugs. Therefore a separate Section 27A was introduced to check these activities which were the root cause of illicit traffic. “Financing” and “harbouring” such activities were, therefore specifically mentioned under Section 27A.

The word “financing” would necessarily refer to some activities involving illegal trade or business.

Hence, the allegations against the applicant of spending money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput will not mean that she had financed illicit traffic.

Section 27A indicates that financing is in respect to illicit traffic through which the financer expects monetary or other returns. This Section makes harbouring a punishable offence.

Further, Harbouring is in respect of a person who is engaged in such activities. It requires that he is either employed in or has involved himself with or has taken part in or has embarked on such activities.

Court observed that,

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.

Bench also disagreed 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 27 A of the NDPS Act.

Allegations against the applicant

Applicant on some occasions had used her own money in procuring drugs and facilitated through her brother. For the said purpose, Sushant Singh Rajput’s employees were also used.

Bench stated that the applicant’s acts will not fall under Section 27A of NDPS Act.

The investigation did not reveal any recovery either from the Applicant or from the house of Sushant Singh Rajput. It is NCB’s own case that the drugs were already consumed and hence there was no recovery.

There is nothing at this stage to show that the Applicant had committed any offence involving commercial quantity of contraband.

Court found that 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.

Applicant was not part of the chain of drug dealers, she did not forward the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else and has no criminal antecedents.

While granting bail, Court imposed the following conditions:

  • Applicant is directed to furnish PR bond in the sum of Rs 1,00,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
  • Applicant shall deposit her passport with the investigating agency.
  • Cannot leave the country without prior permission of Special Judge for NDPS.
  • Applicant shall attend the investigating agency on the first Monday of every month for a period of 6 months.
  • After her release on bail, the Applicant shall mark her presence at the nearest Police Station from her residence anytime between 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to show her availability, for a period of ten days from her release.

[Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 990, decided on 07-10-2020]


Also Read:

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“When truth meets sunshine, justice will not prevail on the living alone but after Life’s fitful fever, now the departed will also sleep well. Satyameva Jayate.”

Supreme Court: A single judge bench of Hrishikesh Roy, J has held the ongoing investigation by the CBI to be lawful and further directed that if any other case is registered on the death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput and the surrounding circumstances of his unnatural death, the CBI is directed to investigate the new case as well. Such enabling order will make it possible for the CBI to investigate the new case, avoiding the rigors of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring consent from the State of Maharashtra.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The order came on Rhea Chakraborty’s plea seeking the transfer of an FIR, from Patna to Mumbai, accusing her of abetting in Sushant Singh Rajput’s alleged suicide on June 14, 2020. Chakraborty, who was reportedly Sushant Singh’s girlfriend at the time of his death, has challenged Bihar police’s jurisdiction in the matter, given that the alleged crime took place in Maharashtra. Apprehending that all facets of the death of the his son will not be investigated properly by the Mumbai police, Krishna Kishore Singh has filed the above FIR on 25.07.2020, which led to registration of the case by Rajeev Nagar Police Sation, Patna. Several allegations are leveled against Chakraborty in connection with the suicidal death of the Actor and, therefore, she has filed this Petition for transfer of the proceedings from the Bihar Police to the Mumbai Police Authorities. Bihar Police had, however, recommended for a CBI probe into death case of actor and the Centre has accepted the same.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

TRANSFER POWER UNDER SECTION 406 CRPC

The scope of exercise of this power is for securing the ends of justice. The precedents suggest that transfer plea under Section 406 CrPC were granted in cases where the Court believed that the trial may be prejudiced and fair and impartial proceedings cannot be carried on, if the trial continues. The Court held that only cases and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred.

SCOPE OF SECTION 174 CRPC PROCEEDING AND MUMBAI POLICE’s EXERCISE OF POWER THEREOF

The Court noticed that the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC is limited to the inquiry carried out by the police to find out the apparent cause of unnatural death. These are not in the nature of investigation, undertaken after filing of FIR under Section 154 CrPC.

It further said that the Mumbai Police has attempted to stretch the purview of Section 174 without drawing up any FIR and therefore, as it appears, no investigation pursuant to commission of a cognizable offence is being carried out by the Mumbai police. They are yet to register a FIR. Nor they have made a suitable determination, in terms of Section 175(2) CrPC. Hence,

“The inquiry conducted under Section 174 CrPC by the Mumbai police is limited for a definite purpose but is not an investigation of a crime under Section 157 of the CrPC.”

JURISDICTION OF PATNA POLICE TO REGISTER COMPLAINT

The Court held that the Patna police committed no illegality in registering the Complaint. Looking at the nature of the allegations in the Complaint which also relate to misappropriation and breach of trust, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police appears to be in order.

“Registration of FIR is mandated when information on cognizable offence is received by the police and at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that the concerned police station does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case.”

Moreover, the allegation relating to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money which were to be eventually accounted for in Patna (where the Complainant resides), could prima facie indicate the lawful jurisdiction of the Patna police.

It has hence, been held that the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful.

INVESTIGATION ENTRUSTMENT TO CBI

“While the CBI cannot conduct any investigation without the consent of the concerned state as mandated under section 6, the powers of the Constitutional Courts are not fettered by the statutory restriction of the DSPE Act.”

The Court noticed that the FIR at Patna was transferred to the CBI with consent of the Bihar government during pendency of this Transfer Petition. However, in future, if commission of cognizable offence under section 175(2) CrPC is determined, the possibility of parallel investigation by the Mumbai Police cannot be ruled out. Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 read with Section 5 prescribe the requirement of consent from the State government, before entrustment of investigation to the CBI.

“As the CBI has already registered a case and commenced investigation at the instance of the Bihar government, uncertainty and confusion must be avoided in the event of Mumbai Police also deciding to simultaneously investigate the cognizable offence, based on their finding in the inquiry proceeding.”

The Court was hence of the opinion that a decision by this Court on the point would confer legitimacy to the investigation.

“… for the innocents, who might be the target of vilification campaign. Equally importantly, when integrity and credibility of the investigation is discernible, the trust, faith and confidence of the common man in the judicial process will resonate.”

COURT’S DIRECTION ON INVESTIGATION

Noticing that as because both states are making acrimonious allegations of political interference against each other, the Court said that the legitimacy of the investigation has come under a cloud. Accusing fingers are being pointed and people have taken the liberty to put out their own conjectures and theories.

“Such comments, responsible or otherwise, have led to speculative public discourse which have hogged media limelight. These developments unfortunately have the propensity to delay and misdirect the investigation.”

The Court was, hence, of the opinion that to ensure public confidence in the investigation and to do complete justice in the matter, it is appropriate to invoke the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution.

It further noticed that while the steps taken by the Mumbai police in the limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC may not be faulted on the material available before this Court, considering the apprehension voiced by the stakeholders of unfair investigation, this Court must strive to ensure that search for the truth is undertaken by an independent agency, not controlled by either of the two state governments. Most importantly, the credibility of the investigation and the investigating authority, must be protected.

The Court, hence, noted that a fair, competent and impartial investigation is the need of the hour. The expected outcome then would be, a measure of justice for the Complainant, who lost his only son. For the petitioner too, it will be the desired justice as she herself called for a CBI investigation. The dissemination of the real facts through unbiased investigation would certainly result in justice.

[Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 654, decided on 19.08.2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A single judge bench of Hrishikesh Roy, J has reserved verdict actor Rhea Chakraborty’s plea seeking the transfer of an FIR, from Patna to Mumbai, accusing her of abetting in Sushant Singh Rajput’s alleged suicide on June 14, 2020. The Court has, in the meantime, asked the parties to submit written submissions by Thursday i.e. August 13, 2020.

Chakraborty, who was reportedly Sushant Singh’s girlfriend at the time of his death, has challenged Bihar police’s jurisdiction in the matter, given that the alleged crime took place in Maharashtra. Apprehending that all facets of the death of the his son will not be investigated properly by the Mumbai police, Krishna Kishore Singh has filed the above FIR on 25.07.2020, which led to registration of the case by Rajeev Nagar Police Sation, Patna. Several allegations are leveled against Chakraborty in connection with the suicidal death of the Actor and, therefore, she has filed this Petition for transfer of the proceedings from the Bihar Police to the Mumbai Police Authorities.

Earlier, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Sushant Singh Rajput’s father, submitted that

“the Complainant is apprehensive about misdirection of the investigation by the Mumbai Police and, therefore, the Bihar Police Authorities should be permitted to carry on their investigation into the suspicious circumstances on the death of the son of the Complainant.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also informed the Court that Centre has accepted Bihar government’s recommendation for CBI probe into death case of actor. the Bihar Police

State of Maharashtra on the other hand, argued that Patna police has no jurisdiction to either lodge an FIR or investigate it and this has been made a political case. Senior advocate R. Basant submitted,

“the Bandra Police Authorities are conducting a professional investigation and he be given time to place on record the stage and nature of the investigation, conducted so far.”

Senior Advocate Shyam Devan, appearing for Chakraborty, argued that the case is registered at the instance of the deceased actor’s father by the Patna Police Authorities, without any jurisdiction.


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ, and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., deferred the hearing for PIL’s filed in view of the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput, a film actor.

In the present two Public Interest Litigations, it has been sought that CBI should be entrusted with the investigation into the unnatural death of a film actor, Sushant Singh Rajput.

Advocate General for the State, A.A. Kumbhakoni informed the Court that a petition with similar relief was moved before the Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed.

The petitioner on being asked for the copy of the petition stated answered in negative and added that the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition granted liberty to approach this Court.

Another significant point that the Court noted was the Supreme Court’s order dated 5-08-2020 wherein a status report has been called for from the State of Maharashtra in regard to the stage of investigation by Mumbai Police.

Hence, the Advocate General for the State states that the Court may not pass any order on the present petition and may await the Supreme Court’s decision.

Additional Solicitor General, Anil Singh submitted that on acceptance of the request of the deceased father, the CBI has already registered an FIR, inter alia, under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. He has also questioned the approach of the Mumbai Police in quarantining an IPS officer of the Bihar cadre, who had come to Mumbai for the purpose of ascertaining facts, although four other officers of Bihar Police who had earlier visited Mumbai were not meted out such treatment.

Hence in view of the above stated, Court while deferring the hearing till 21-08-2020, stated that CBI has registered an FIR and it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to express any opinion either way.

It would be just and proper to await the orders of the Supreme Court in the pending Transfer Petition, referred to above. [Priyanka Tibrewal v. UOI, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 848, decided on 07-08-2020]


Also Read:

Sushant Singh Rajput death case| SC asks Mumbai Police to submit status of investigation so far; says truth must come out

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court:  A bench headed by SA Bobde, CJ dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

“Who are you. You are a total stranger who is unnecessarily interfering in the case. The victim’s father is pursuing the case. We are dismissing your petition. Dismissed,”

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by law student DD Dubey seeking a CBI or NIA probe into the death of the actor.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the senior law officer of the Central government, submitted before the Supreme Court that the FIR registered in Patna in the case has already been transferred to the CBI for investigation.

CJI asked the petitioner,

“We are told CBI has filed an FIR. What is the locus standi of yours (petitioner), in the matter,”

Advocate Subhash Jha, appearing for the petitioner, had sought a CBI probe into the death case, to which the bench said, “don’t argue like this and make absurd statements”.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had earlier sent a recommendation to the Central government for CBI investigation in the case filed in Patna based on the complaint of Sushant’s father KK Singh against actor Rhea Chakraborty under sections including abetment of suicide on July 25.

Bollywood actor Rhea Chakraborty has also filed plea before Supreme Court  seeking the transfer of an FIR, from Patna to Mumbai, accusing her of abetting in Sushant Singh Rajput’s alleged suicide on June 14, 2020. Chakraborty, who was reportedly Sushant Singh’s girlfriend at the time of his death, has challenged Bihar police’s jurisdiction in the matter, given that the alleged crime took place in Maharashtra.

Apprehending that all facets of the death of the his son will not be investigated properly by the Mumbai police, Krishna Kishore Singh has filed the above FIR on 25.07.2020, which led to registration of the case by Rajeev Nagar Police Sation, Patna. Several allegations are leveled against Chakraborty in connection with the suicidal death of the Actor and, therefore, she has filed this Petition for transfer of the proceedings from the Bihar Police to the Mumbai Police Authorities.

A single judge bench of Hrishikesh Roy, J has directed Mumbai Police to to file status report on probe conducted so far in Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput death case. Asking the parties to file reply within 3 days, the Court has said that it would hear the matter next week. Read more

(Source: ANI)


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A single judge bench of Hrishikesh Roy, J has directed Mumbai Police to to file status report on probe conducted so far in Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput death case. Asking the parties to file reply within 3 days, the Court has said that it would hear the matter next week.

The Court is hearing Bollywood actor Rhea Chakraborty’s plea seeking the transfer of an FIR, from Patna to Mumbai, accusing her of abetting in Sushant Singh Rajput’s alleged suicide on June 14, 2020. Chakraborty, who was reportedly Sushant Singh’s girlfriend at the time of his death, has challenged Bihar police’s jurisdiction in the matter, given that the alleged crime took place in Maharashtra.

Apprehending that all facets of the death of the his son will not be investigated properly by the Mumbai police, Krishna Kishore Singh has filed the above FIR on 25.07.2020, which led to registration of the case by Rajeev Nagar Police Sation, Patna. Several allegations are leveled against Chakraborty in connection with the suicidal death of the Actor and, therefore, she has filed this Petition for transfer of the proceedings from the Bihar Police to the Mumbai Police Authorities.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Sushant Singh Rajput’s father, submitted that

“the Complainant is apprehensive about misdirection of the investigation by the Mumbai Police and, therefore, the Bihar Police Authorities should be permitted to carry on their investigation into the suspicious circumstances on the death of the son of the Complainant.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also informed the Court that Centre has accepted Bihar government’s recommendation for CBI probe into death case of actor. the Bihar Police

State of Maharashtra on the other hand, argued that Patna police has no jurisdiction to either lodge an FIR or investigate it and this has been made a political case. Senior advocate R. Basant submitted,

“the Bandra Police Authorities are conducting a professional investigation and he be given time to place on record the stage and nature of the investigation, conducted so far.”

Senior Advocate Shyam Devan, appearing for Chakraborty, argued that the case is registered at the instance of the deceased actor’s father by the Patna Police Authorities, without any
jurisdiction.

Observing that truth should come out so far as actor’s death is concerned, the Court placed the matter for hearing next week.

” three days time is granted to all parties to place on record their respective stand in the matter. The State of Maharashtra should apprise the Court on the stage of investigation by the Mumbai Police by the next date.”

[Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 625 , order dated 05.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India