The prosecution was “justified” in invoking stringent provisions of the NDPS Act pertaining to illicit trafficking of medicine towards Karishma Prakash, a particular court docket in Mumbai noticed whereas denying pre-arrest bail to the supervisor of Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone in a drug case linked to the loss of life of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The special NDPS court rejected Ms Prakash’s anticipatory bail plea on August 5 and an in depth copy of the order was made accessible on Wednesday.
Her lawyer had pleaded that no prima facie materials was introduced earlier than the court docket to indicate provisions below the Narcotic Medication and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act Part 27A are attracted within the case.
Part 27(A) of NDPS Act gives a stringent framework for punishing offences associated to illicit visitors of narcotic medication and psychotropic substances by way of imprisonment and forfeiture of property.
Her lawyer had argued that the prosecution has additionally not proven any materials or proof on which it desires to rely on to justify the addition of the part throughout listening to of her anticipatory bail utility.
Nonetheless, particular decide VV Vidwans mentioned, “Contemplating the prima facie materials and proof on file, 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 utility.”
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 legislation laid by the Supreme Court docket, Ms Prakash’s lawyer had submitted.
However, the court docket mentioned, “Although statements of co-accused wouldn’t be admissible as proof throughout the trial of the case, it may be thought-about by the court docket whereas deciding anticipatory bail utility on the stage of investigation as prima facie circumstance on file and materials towards the applicant.”
Throughout listening to of the appliance, Ms Prakash’s lawyer had positioned earlier than that court docket a cell phone recording to indicate “malafides” on a part of the prosecution whereas including part 27(A) of the anti-drug legislation.
Nonetheless, the court docket 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 court docket mentioned.
“I’m of the thought-about view that, assuming for the sake of arguments that there exist malafides on a part of the prosecution, it can’t 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 midst of arguments by counsel for the applicant,” the decide mentioned.
Fearing arrest within the drug-related probe into the loss of life of Rajput, Ms Prakash filed an anticipatory bail utility earlier than the NDPS court docket in October final yr.
After listening to intensive submissions made by each the defence and prosecution, the decide final week rejected her plea.
The court docket, nevertheless, stayed the order until August 25 to permit Ms Prakash to method the Bombay Excessive Court docket.
The Narcotics Management Bureau (NCB) has been probing alleged nexus between drug peddlers and Bollywood celebrities which got here to gentle after Rajput”s loss of life in June final yr.
The CBI is individually probing the case of Rajput’s loss of life.
Ms Prakash’s identify cropped up throughout interrogation of one of many arrested drug peddlers.
The central company has thus far arrested greater than 20 individuals as a part of its investigation into the drug case.
Many of the accused, together with the late actor’s girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty, are out on bail at the moment.