Bombay HC's Interpretation Of NDPS Provisions In Rhea Chakraborty Case Not To Be Treated As A Precedent : Supreme Court

 “At this stage the challenge to impugned order may not be required. However, the question of law would be kept open. This judgment of HC would not be taken as a precedent for any other case", the bench stated in the order.

The drugs case against Chakraborty was registered following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2021, alleging that she was a part of "drug dealers" who facilitated purchase of drugs for Rajput. She was arrested in the NDPS case on September 8, 2021 and got bail a month later on October 4, 2021.

In the order granting bail, the High Court bench of Justice SV Kotwal rejected the claim of the Narcotics Control Bureau(NCB) that actor Rhea Chakraborty was an active member of a drug syndicate.

"She is not part of drug dealers. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary or other benefits", the HC observed.

The High Court observed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Rhea was not guilty of any offence punishable under Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) or any offence involving commercial quantity.

Section 27A of the Act relates to the offence of "financing illicit trade" and "harbouring" of a person engaged in such trade. This is a serious offence, punishable with a minimum of ten years imprisonment, and is mentioned as one of the offences under Section 37 which deals with rigours of grant of bail.

The Court observed that mere giving money to another would not mean "financing illicit trade".

"...simply providing money for a particular transaction or other transactions will not be financing of that activity. Financing will have to be interpreted to mean to provide funds for either making that particular activity operational or for sustaining it. It is the financial support which directly or indirectly is cause of existence of such illicit traffic. The word "financing" would necessarily refer to some activities involving illegal trade or business. The allegations against the Applicant of spending money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput will not, therefore, mean that she had financed illicit traffic", the HC observed.

The Court also rubbished the allegation that Rhea had "harboured" Sushant Singh Rajput.

"In the present case, no criminal case or FIR was pending against Sushant Singh Rajput. He was residing in his own house and was spending for his own food and other necessities. At that point of time, he had no apprehension of any arrest. Therefore, the act on the part of the Applicant cannot be stretched to attract the allegation of harbouring Sushant Singh Rajput", Justice Kotwal observed in this regard.

Case title: Union Of India v. Rhea Chakraborty

Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 2127/2021