 Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor talk can do press bell button for notifications. Actor Rhea Chakrabarty and nine others have been booked under various sections and provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, the NDPS Act. They have been booked by the Narcotics Control Bureau NCB. These 10 accused have been booked under section 8c, red with sections 20b, 2, section 22, 27a, 28, 29 and section 30 of the NDPS Act. These sections relate to the alleged use and possession of cannabis and psychotrophic substances, you know, financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders as well as the abatement and, you know, criminal conspiracy attempt and preparation of, you know, committing an offence. As per these provisions, if the accused, including Rhea Chakrabarty and her brother, are found guilty, they could face imprisonment of 10 years or more along with monetary fine. The NCB's remand application before the court predominantly stated that, you know, it had relied on these statements made by the accused in the case, you know, including alleged drug peddlers and Sushant Singh Rajput's house staff who had allegedly, you know, admitted about selling and receiving drugs respectively for Sushant on his directions and on some occasions, you know, on the instructions of Rhea Chakrabarty as alleged. The NCB apparently claims that Rhea Chakrabarty is actively connected with the drugs indicate for the drug supplies. However, interestingly and ironically, the NCB's remand request did not make any mention of consumption or possession of drugs by Rhea. The NCB claims that she would manage finance for drug procurement along with Sushant Singh Rajput and procure drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput for consumption purposes. Based on this, the the charge under section 27A, section 27A related to the financing of illicit traffic has been invoked in the case, which is a non-bailable offense. Now, talking about Rhea Chakrabarty's stand, she claims that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. She even goes to the extent of saying that she was coerced into making self-incriminating confessions and she has formally retracted all such incriminatory confessions. Another procedural aspect she has questioned is, you know, relating to the process followed during her interrogation. She says that there was not a single lady, you know, officer who sort of interrogated her as mandated by the law, you know, laid down by the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Barsay versus a state of Maharashtra. She is also trying to demolish NCB's case on the ground that the allegations that the allegations made against her would at the most make out a case of purchasing a small quantity of drug, which is, you know, in essence, a bailable offense. There is no, not a shred of evidence, you know, she says to connect her with financing any illicit traffic or harboring any offender. And hence, you know, she claims that the ingredients of Section 27A of the NDPS Act are not made out in present, you know, case, you know, on the basis of, you know, the factions' circumstances connected therewith. As for now, the NCB is on a mute as to the amount of financing, quantum of drugs and the specific type of drugs allegedly procured and financed by her. The NCB's case to a great extent revolves around the fact that Rhea would coordinate the purchase and delivery of the drugs for her then boyfriend, Sushant Singh Rajput. So one lenient way of looking at the sequence of, you know, events would entail, you know, that her alleged role, if any, is, you know, purchase of small quantity of drugs for her then, you know, boyfriend, which, you know, should ordinarily fall within the embed of Section 20B2A and not 27A, etc. You know, dealing with, you know, smaller quantity would mean a, you know, what, a maximum imprisonment of up to a year or with fine or both as against 10 years or more imprisonment stipulated for the offense booked by NCB against her. Now, getting bail under the category of offense in Section 27A is tough. As I mentioned earlier, you know, Rhea is booked under this section apart from other sections. This Section 27A prescribes a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may, you know, extend to 20 years or, you know, for financing directly or indirectly, you know, illegal illicit beg your pardon traffic and harboring offenders. The window of getting bail is restricted by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Now, if you see the relevant text of Section 37 in front of your screens, it says offenses to be cognisable under, offenses to be cognisable and non-bailable, not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, 2 of 1974, a, every offense punishable under this act shall be cognisable, which means that the police can arrest without making, without any warrant, b, no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless, so no release is possible at all in 27A, unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. So, the statute is very clear, you know, the public prosecutor gets a big handle, you know, as you see, in this matter, the limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause B of Subsection 1 are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 or any other law for the time being enforced, you know, on granting bail. This section makes, you know, it absolutely clear that getting bail for Rhea will not be very easy. It's not going to be an easy path and she could, according to me, get bail only from High Court or the Supreme Court, you know, speaking practically rather than theoretically because the statute is very tight, you know, Section 37 is very clear, you know, it gives massive handle to the public prosecutor and if the public prosecutor opposes, the court has to satisfy many tests. In fact, the Supreme Court has quite recently observed that there cannot be liberal approach in the matter of bail in the NDPS Act. Yes, this was in what, 2020, this year, in the case of State of Kerala versus Rajesh, etc. However, there are several judgments of the Supreme Court of India which, you know, do go in the favor of accused, but most of these judgments are in appeals, you know, against the final order as to conviction, not at the interim stage. So, it's a long battle. Well, nonetheless, you know, let me share a few judgments on the principle of law regarding NDPS Act. But first, you know, let me discuss a judgment about the confession part, you know, because Rhea Chakraborty has questioned that her confession has not been voluntary, voluntarily sought. The Supreme Court, you know, in 2019, that is last year, delivered a judgment in the case of Mohammed Faasreen versus a state, you know, represented by intelligence officer, where, you know, it ruled that we, for the decision of this case, therefore, proceed on the premises that the confession is admissible, even if it is admissible, the court has to be satisfied, that it is a voluntary statement, you know, free from any pressure, you know, that the accused was apprised, and they accused, you know, accused was apprised of his rights before recording the confession. No such material has been brought on the record of the case. It is also well settled that a confession, especially a confession recorded when the accused is in, is a weak piece of evidence, and there must be some corroborative evidence, you know, I may not have read the whole text, you know, verbatim, but it was in front of your screens to appreciate. As such, without going into the legality of the admissibility of the confession, the Supreme Court held that even if these confessions are admissible, then also, then also the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused, that's what they held. Then another important judgment I could lay my hands on was a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hanif Khan, Anu Khan versus Center, you know, Bureau of Narcotics, you know, this judgment is also pretty much recent, last year judgment of 2019, you know, the Supreme Court held that, you know, the prosecution, it's in front of you the text, the prosecution under the NDPS Act carries a reverse burden of proof with a culpable mental state of the accused. He's presumed to be guilty, consequent to recovery of contraband from him, and it is for the accused to establish his innocence, unlike the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent, you know, unless proved guilty. But that does not absolve the prosecution, you know, that does not absolve the prosecution from establishing, you know, that the case only where after, you know, the burden shifts to the accused. Again, you know, the text was in front of you, I may not have read it in verbatim, the court held that because, you know, there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. If at any stage the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, you know, if the accused creates a reasonable doubt as a part of his defense to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally go to him. Then, you know, there is another recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar, you know, alias Gangaram versus the state of Madhya Pradesh. This judgment is of this year itself, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the presumption against the accused of culpability under, you know, the act to explain the position satisfactorily are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The presumptive provision with reverse burden of proof does not sanction, you know, conviction on basis of preponderance of probability. The court further said, you know, I mean, I would like to show that text to you, I will quote from the judgment side from the judgment, the stringent provision of the NDPS Act, such as Section 37, the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a Prem FAC case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only where after which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused. The gravity of the sentence and the stringency of the provision will therefore call for a heightened scrutiny of the evidence for establishment of foundational fact by the prosecution. Well, I hope I was able to give you, you know, an overview and perhaps some insight into the NDPS Act. I will see you again as the producers will line up my next lecture with the viewers. Thank you so much.