Rhea FIR Mumbai Police against Sushant sisters

While SSRians all over the world have been waiting for the CBI to come out with their findings in the Sushant Singh Rajput death probe, the Bombay High Court heard the associated case of Rhea Chakraboprty’s FIR against Sushant Singh Rajput’s sisters in which she claims that the prescription drugs the sisters organized for Sushant may have caused him to commit suicide. The sisters had filed an application to have the Rhea FIR quashed.

Rhea Chakraborty in an FIR filed at the Bandra police station in Mumbai alleged that the sisters conspired with Dr. Kumar to obtain a false prescription for administering banned medicines to the late Sushant Singh Rajput.

The FIR disclosed charges against the sisters and Dr. Tarun Kumar of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Sushant’s sisters had moved the High Court moved to quash the FIR against them which was heard by the Division Bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice MS Karnik.

The Bombay High Court, reserving its verdict in the plea moved by Priyanka and Meetu Singh, (sisters of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput) seeking to quash the FIR lodged against them with the Mumbai Police in a complaint filed by actress Rhea Chakraborty made some observations about the innocent looks of Sushant Singh Rajput.

Before reserving the judgment, Justice SS Shinde made an oral observation that “from his (Rajput’s) face, one can make out that he was innocent and sober and very good human being. Even in MS Dhoni, everybody liked him especially in that film.”

The Division Bench hearing the case also included Justice MS Karnik where lawyers from all sides argued their respective positions.

Sushant Singh Rajput sisters’ lawyer – Vikas Singh

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the sisters, pointed out the inordinate delay of 91 days in filing of the FIR and submitted that that had not explained by Chakraborty.

Not surprisingly, Vikas Singh submitted that the allegations that the prescription was for ‘banned’ drugs were baseless. He further submitted that the Telemedicine Practice Guidelines permitted the medicines to be prescribed to a patient in the first consultation.

Criticizing the Mumbai police for registering a case cognizable offence, he submitted it was up to the CBI to investigate the issue after it would be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by way of a Supreme Court order.

Vikas Singh submitted there was no evidence against the sisters.

Vikas Singh submitted to the court:

“The FIR is a counter case. The way she has listed the events points out chain of events pointing out some other accused and then there are other events claimed which point out other accused. But then this is part of same investigation which is being conducted by CBI.”

Advocate Satish Maneshinde, appearing for Rhea Chakraborty, addressed the issue of 91 days delay comprehensively when he addressed the court. Maneshinde said Rhea was not aware of the prescriptions when she was with Sushant or when he died around 14 June and even after the actor died.

“Chakraborty was aware that Rajput was taking medications and they had altercations on that point, she was not aware of the prescription” Satish Maneshinde told the court.

Clarifying the timing of Rhea becoming aware of the prescriptions, Advocate Maneshinde submitted that after the prescription was leaked on social media, Rhea Chakraborty realised that the medicines were bought through these prescriptions, which could also be a cause for Sushant’s suicide.

Explaining the logical next step, Maneshinde added that Rhea went to Mumbai Police because she could not file a complaint directly with the CBI.

“CBI is not a filing station”, he claimed.

Concluding his submissions, Maneshinde pointing the court to the fact that Chakraborty’s FIR provides the investigating agencies with a possible, different chain of events than what was being claimed by Rajput’s family and there is no harm in undertaking an inquiry into that as well.

“The circumstances that I am pointing out that should also be examined. His family is concerned with the cause if his death. So if this leads to finding answers, then what is the harm?”

The Court has reserved its verdict on the matter.

Similar Posts by The Author: