Sushant Singh Rajput was the only consumer: Rhea Chakraborty's lawyer

Updated: 30 September, 2020 07:28 IST | Faizan Khan | Mumbai

Bombay High Court hears bail applications of Rhea and Showik Chakraborty and others, reserves order

Sushant Singh Rajput
Sushant Singh Rajput

In the forensic report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), it has ruled out any organic poisoning in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case as was alleged by his family.

The forensic experts met the CBI team investigating the case and submitted the report on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court heard the bail applications of actress Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik and others. The court has reserved its order.

The AIIMS forensic team has re-analysed the postmortem and viscera reports of Cooper Hospital and now the CBI team would go through all the findings and conclude the case. However, the CBI has not ruled out any aspect of the case till now. Sources said that the DNA samples collected from Sushant's body and those from the crime scene have also matched.

Meanwhile, additional solicitor general Anil Singh, who appeared for the NCB, opposed the bail applications of all the accused and said that section 27 A was applicable as the accused were involved in trafficking and financing of drugs. He also said that this was worse than murder or culpable homicide referring to the Supreme Court's interpretation.

Speaking about the applicability of section 27A, Singh said that the quantity of drugs was not relevant, but whether the person was directly or indirectly involved in financing illicit trafficking of drugs.

“People who are supposed to be role models feel that there is nothing wrong in consuming drugs. We will go into the depth of the matter to put an end to this drug abuse,” he said in court.

Also Read: Bombay High Court reserves order on bail pleas of Rhea, Showik Chakraborty

While hearing the bail pleas, the court observed, “Harbouring is applicable only when a person is involved in the drug trade. If a person is a drug addict and just consumes it, then it will not amount to harbouring under section 27A.” However, the court added that these were just preliminary observations.

'Sushant was the only consumer'

Advocate Satish Maneshinde submitted before court, “Rhea was not handling Sushant's account. He had an accountant. The question of financing Sushant's drug procurement does not arise. He was the only consumer in this case. The NCB has no evidence about anyone else consuming it. There is nothing to say that Rhea financed any illicit drug purchase. If Sushant had been alive today, he would have been booked under section 20 of the NDPS Act. He then would have claimed immunity of rehabilitation and got away with very less punishment. Then how can Rhea and Showik be punished under section 27A?”

Lawyers of Samuel Miranda and Deepesh Sawant argued that both were servants of Sushant and contraband was purchased for him and his friends and that they were not sold to him.

Keep scrolling to read more news

Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and a complete guide from food to things to do and events across Mumbai. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates.

Mid-Day is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@middayinfomedialtd) and stay updated with the latest news

First Published: 30 September, 2020 06:02 IST

Sign up for all the latest news, top galleries and trending videos from

loading image
This website uses cookie or similar technologies, to enhance your browsing experience and provide personalised recommendations. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. OK