skip to content
Advertisement
Premium
This is an archive article published on July 4, 2022

Drugs case: Bombay HC grants bail to flatmate of Sushant Singh Rajput

The NCB had booked Pithani under Section 27A (financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, among other offences. Pithani had approached the HC after his default bail plea was rejected by the special NDPS court.

sushant singh rajputSushant Singh Rajput started his career as a television actor.

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s flatmate Siddharth Pithani, who was arrested last May in a drugs case lodged by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) after the actor’s death the 2020.

The NCB had booked Pithani under Section 27A (financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, among other offences. Pithani had approached the HC after his default bail plea was rejected by the special NDPS court.

Justice Bharati H Dangre granted bail to Pithani on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000, along with sureties.

Story continues below this ad

Pithani’s lawyers argued that Section 27A has been wrongly applied as only a small quantity of contraband was seized from him. They claimed that Pithani was arrested on the basis of statements made by two co-accused, Rajput’s manager Samuel Miranda and cook Dipesh Sawant, and the same was not admissible evidence. Pithani, in his appeal, said that there was no evidence of his involvement in illicit drug trafficking. However, Special Public Prosecutor Shreeram Shirsat argued for the NCB that there were videos on Pithani’s laptop and phone as well as bank transactions through Rajput’s accounts, which can be linked to the purchase of contraband.

The bench observed in its order, “Considering the material compiled in the chargesheet, no case is made out against the applicant for financing the illicit traffic and, therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant is perfectly justified in relying upon the observations in the case of Rhea Chakraborty (co-accused) and he would submit that his case is on a better footing, since the applicant has not provided money, but it was Sushant’s own money from which the contraband was purchased.”

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement
Advertisement