Factual circumstances not same in Rhea, S’wood drug cases: HC

The Karnataka High Court observed that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the (actor) Rhea Chakraborty case is quite contrary to the circumstances in the Sandalwood drug case.

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar made this observation while rejecting the bail petitions filed by Ragini Dwivedi, Sanjana Galrani and Prashant Ranka. The counsel, appearing for the petitioners, argued that whenever the seized substance is in a small quantity and if it is a case of mere consumption, the offence is bailable and it was in this background that the Bombay High Court granted bail to Rhea.

“There is no denial of the fact that bail was granted to the accused in that case, but it was based on factual circumstances,” the court said.

It also said that the offence punishable under Section 27 (A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) is not quantity specific.

On the investigation, the court said that the evidence, collected by the investigating officer so far, rules out the argument that a false case has been registered.

After going through the police diary, provided by the special public prosecutor, the court observed that some of the accused were in regular contact with peddlers which is “diagrammatically depicted.”

It was mentioned by the prosecution that Ragini filled water in the bottle when she was asked to give her a urine sample. The court noted this and observed that if it is true, it shows her intention to mislead the investigation.

“If anticipatory bail is sought in the background of the accusation of committing offences having adverse implication on the society, the discretion must be exercised with great circumspection to strike a balance between personal liberty of a person and the interest of society” the order stated.

While rejecting the petitions, the court said that “bothersome brutality dangerously affecting the young is substance abuse.” “The ill effect of this substance not just costs the physical and psychological abilities of an individual but spreads a dark shadow on the future of the society. The courts should not remain oblivious of this malady even while deciding application for bail,” the court said.