[Sushant Singh Case] "This Is An Unusual Case, Important Question Of Law Is Involved"; Bombay HC To Extensively Hear Bail Applications Of Abdel Parihar, Dipesh Sawant & Samuel Miranda On Sept 29

Justice SV Kotwal was hearing the applications via video conferencing and asked counsel for the applicants as well as Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who was appearing for the NCB, to come prepared to argue the matter extensively on the next hearing and specifically justify the applicability of Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

All six accused have been booked under Section8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(a), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act. Sessions court denied bail to all of them on September 11 and later four of the accused namely Zaid Vilatra, Abdel Parihar, Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant moved High Court.

Accused Zaid Vilatra's bail came up before Justice GS Kulkarni today and Advocate Taraq Sayed appeared on his behalf. The matter was simply adjourned and will be taken up for hearing on Monday ie. September 21.

Thereafter, Advocate Sayed appeared on behalf of another accused Abdel Parihar before Justice Kotwal and laid out the facts of the case. He submitted that the Narcotics Control Bureau at first arrested Abbas Ramzan Ali Lakhani and Karn Arora. A total of 59 grams of Ganja was recovered and both the accused were arrested.

Based on disclosure by accused Abbas and Karn, NCB team searched the premises of accused Zaid Vilatra and seized Rs.9,55,750 along with some foreign currency. He stated that the seized amount is the sale proceeds of contraband. He disclosed the name of accused Abdel Basit Parihar, receiver of the said Ganja/Marijuana. During the statement Abdel Parihar revealed that he purchases and sells Marijuana/Ganja through accused Zaid and Kaizan Ebrahim.

Abdel Basit Parihar that he facilitated the drugs and he was in contact with accused Samuel Miranda (house manager of Sushant) and accused Showik Chakraborty. He used to pay and receive money for contraband via Credit cards/Cash and payment gateways.

When accused Kaizan Ebrahim was interrogated by NCB team, he disclosed the name of accused Anuj Keshwani as supplier of Ganja/Marijuana. Accused Keshwani was dealing in the purchase and sale of Ganja, Charas and LSD. He used to procure drugs from Nigel Mahakala with intent to sell to accused Kaizan Ebrahim. Accused Anuj Keshwani was in contact with accused Kaizan Ebrahim. On the basis of statement of accused Keshwani, NCB team seized Charas, Ganja, THC and LSD along with some cash from his house. Nigel Mahakala is absconding.

Moreover, Adv Sayed submitted that a total of 16 people have been apprehended in the case and all the drugs seized are in small quantities.

At this juncture, Justice Kotwal interrupted Sr Adv Sayed and said that except for LSD that was recovered from another accused Anuj Keswani which was in commercial quantity.

However, Anuj Keswani was granted bail and Section 27A of the NDPS Act was not applied, Advocate Sayed argued.

Referring to the act itself, Adv Sayed submitted that in order to attract bar under Section 37, offence has to be under Sections 19, 24 or 27A of the NDPS Act or an offence under commercial quality. In the present case, Section 27A has been applied even though there has been no recovery, Adv Sayed said.

While Section 27A is upto one years imprisonment as punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance namely cocaine, morphine and diacetyl-morphine, Section 37 states that no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Sections 19, 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail.

Section 29 is the punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy under the NDPS Act.

Thereafter, Adv Sayed argued that the NCB's entire case is based on the premise that Sushant Singh Rajput consumed drugs and the accused supplied him with the drugs but the one consuming the drugs is no more. How will you prove charge of consumption? Now, punishment for consumption is upto one year, but the provisions applied on the accused are punishable by upto ten years. How can that be? How can the consumer only get one year while I, who is not even consuming, will be punished by imprisonment of ten years? Adv Sayed asked.

After pursuing through the facts of the case and the NDPS Act itself, Court asked the Additional Solicitor General to answer this question posed by the defense that what is defined as financing? (under Section 29).

Addressing Adv Sayed's argument regarding the offences applicable to the accused, Court noted-

"The purpose of the act is rehabilitation of those who are addicts hence they are treated differently in the scheme of the act. As the primary goal is to eliminate the illicit drug trade that takes place. So if the offence is regarding contraband which is less than commercial quantity then Section 20(b) alone is sufficient, why was Section 27A been applied. So, prosecution has to argue on the financing aspect."

Addressing ASG Singh, Court said that the basic argument against your (NCB's) action is that you have to go after the bigger fish, so submit your contentions accordingly. I hope you understand what I am trying to say, Justice Kotwal asked ASG Singh as the hearing was interrupted due to network issues.

After coming back online, Justice Kotwal said-

It is not about this case or particular accused alone, all other cases will be impacted by this. This matter involves important questions of law and needs to be heard extensively."

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for further hearing on September 29. Before logging off, Justice Kotwal was heard saying-

"It is an unusual case, the contraband is not there, the consumer is not there."