The particular NDPS courtroom rejected Prakash’s anticipatory bail plea on August 5 and an in depth copy of the order was made obtainable on Wednesday.
Her lawyer had pleaded that no prima facie materials was introduced earlier than the courtroom to indicate provisions beneath the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act Part 27A are attracted within the case.
Part 27(A) of NDPS Act offers a stringent framework for punishing offences associated to illicit visitors of narcotic medication and psychotropic substances by means of imprisonment and forfeiture of property.
Her lawyer had argued that the prosecution has additionally not proven any materials or proof on which it needs to depend upon to justify the addition of the part throughout listening to of her anticipatory bail software.
Nonetheless, particular decide V V Vidwans mentioned, “Contemplating the prima facie materials and proof on report, I’m of the view that the prosecution was justified in invoking provisions of Part 27A of the NDPS Act throughout the pendency of this software.”
The defence had vehemently argued that the one proof towards the applicant was statements of co-accused individuals within the case.
The identical wouldn’t be admissible in view of a regulation laid by the Supreme Court, Prakash’s lawyer had submitted.
However, the courtroom mentioned, “Although statements of co-accused wouldn’t be admissible as proof throughout the trial of the case, it may be thought of by the courtroom whereas deciding anticipatory bail software on the stage of investigation as prima facie circumstance on report and materials towards the applicant.”
Throughout listening to of the applying, Prakash’s lawyer had positioned earlier than that courtroom a cell phone recording to indicate “malafides” on a part of the prosecution whereas including part 27(A) of the anti-drug regulation.
Nonetheless, the courtroom held it was not ample for accepting the competition about malafides made by the defence.
It’s only prima facie materials and would require proof to be laid for proving such malafides within the case on behalf the prosecution, the courtroom mentioned.
“I’m of the thought of view that, assuming for the sake of arguments that there exist malafides on a part of the prosecution, it can not over-ride the deserves of the case…subsequently, anticipatory bail can’t be granted to the applicant merely on the bottom that malafides exist, as has been tried to be demonstrated in the middle of arguments by counsel for the applicant,” the decide mentioned.
Fearing arrest within the drug-related probe into the dying of Rajput, Prakash filed an anticipatory bail software earlier than the NDPS courtroom in October final yr.
After listening to intensive submissions made by each the defence and prosecution, the decide final week rejected her plea.
The courtroom, nevertheless, stayed the order until August 25 to permit Prakash to strategy the Bombay excessive courtroom.
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has been probing alleged nexus between drug peddlers and Bollywood celebrities which got here to gentle after Rajput’s dying in June final yr.
The CBI is individually probing the case of Rajput’s dying.
Prakash’s identify cropped up throughout interrogation of one of many arrested drug peddlers.
The central company has to date arrested greater than 20 folks as a part of its investigation into the drug case.
A lot of the accused, together with the late actor’s girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty, are out on bail presently.