[Rhea Bail Hearing-LIVE UPDATES] Bombay HC Hearing On Bail Application Of Rhea Chakraborty And Others In NDPS Case

ASG (for NCB) : There was no allegation of financing or harbouring in that case.

ASG (for NCB) : That judgment actually supports me

Justice Kotwal : What about the Kerala judgment? (K K Ashraf vs State of Kerala)

ASG (for NCB) : We have to go by the simple provisions of the Act. If financing is included in Section 27A, it applies. Nobody has challenged the provision. We cannot go behind the reason why financing is included in the provision.

Justice Kotwal : Somebody lends you money for purchasing drugs for you. And the one who advanced the loan gets 10 years and the one who purchased gets only one year!

Justice Kotwal : So a person who actually purchases gets lesser punishment (under Sec 8(c)) and a person who pays money gets higher punishment (under Sec 27A). What logic is that?

Justice Kotwal : Sale and purchase are covered under Section 8(c) also. What is the difference then(between Sec 8(c) and 27A)?

ASG : Financing is not covered under Section 8(c).

Voluntary statements for Rhea & Showik that they have been making payments for purchase of prohibited drugs for Sushant. Therefore, they directly fall within the scope of sale, purchase, shipment of drugs : ASG (for NCB).

ASG (for NCB) submits that quantity is irrelevant for Section 27A.

The test for Section 27A is that person is involved directly or indirectly in financing of "illicit traffic".

Justice Kotwal says the word "engaging" in the definition of "illicit drug trade" is important as it denotes a continuous activity.

Section 8(c) does not cover this, he adds.