Tribune News Service
New Delhi, August 11
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on actor Rhea Chakraborty’s plea for switch of an FIR lodged in opposition to her in Patna in reference to the dying of Sushant Singh Rajput, who was allegedly discovered hanging at his Bandra residence in Mumbai on June 14.
A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy reserved its order after listening to a marathon of arguments from advocates representing Rhea, Sushant’s father, the governments of Maharashtra and Bihar and the CBI. It requested the events to file their written submissions, if any, by Thursday.
During the listening to, the Maharashtra and Bihar governments traded costs over the probe into Sushant Singh Rajput’s dying, with every accusing the opposite of political interference.
Rhea Chakraborty, who’s below probe within the case, too, expressed apprehension of bias, saying there was a substantial quantity of state interference.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Sushant’s father KK Singh, defended the Bihar authorities’s choice at hand over the probe to the CBI.
“The larger picture is that I lost my son. Mumbai police don’t listen to me and took the probe to a completely different direction. My daughter could enter into the room where my son was found after the body was reportedly brought down. Nobody in my family has seen his body hanging,” KK Singh instructed a Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
He urged the court docket to place its seal of approval on the CBI probe, which was additionally demanded by Rhea someday again.
On behalf of the CBI, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta stated: “The only pending investigation is in Bihar. Whether it is valid or not…cannot be decided in a transfer petition.”
He stated the affidavit filed by Mumbai police used the phrase “investigation” with out registering an FIR below the CrPC.
“If it was just an inquest, there can’t be an investigation,” Mehta stated, including, an inquest continuing couldn’t be an alternative to an investigation.
Mehta questioned how the Mumbai police might summon 56 individuals and report their statements. “They can’t do it under an inquest proceeding and they never lodged an FIR,” he stated, including the statements have been recorded unauthorised.
He stated because the Enforcement Directorate was already probing the case, one other central company — the CBI — must also be allowed to research.
“The affidavit by Mumbai police shows a foregone conclusion that it was a suicide…Truth has to be elicited. An investigation must take place and it has to be fair, extensive and truth-eliciting. We don’t know if the petitioner (Rhea) is a witness, an accused, a complainant or a nobody in this case… but we can say that no case was pending in Mumbai when she filed her petition for transfer of the case in Patna,” Mehta stated.
But earlier than Vikas Singh and Mehta made their submissions, senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Bihar authorities, and senior advocate AM Singhvi, showing for the Maharashtra authorities, indulged in a authorized slugfest over the investigation into the case.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan instructed the court docket on behalf of Rhea that there was not solely 00a substantial delay in submitting the FIR however there was additionally state interference within the case.
He stated the Bihar FIR was registered on the behest of the Chief Minister and no honest probe might occur on the occasion of the Bihar police.
In her affidavit filed on Monday, Rhea had opposed the switch of the Patna FIR in opposition to her by Sushant’s father to the CBI, saying she was being made “scapegoat of political agendas”.
Bihar Government and Sushant’s father opposed her plea, saying her petition has turn out to be infructuous after the CBI took over the probe.
Sushant’s father has additionally accused Rhea Chakraborty of giving drug overdose to Sushant.
The Maharashtra authorities has opposed the registration of an FIR by Bihar police and its subsequent switch to the CBI.
Rhea, who had earlier demanded a CBI probe into Sushant’s unnatural dying, modified her stand on the problem.
Divan stated as an alternative of transferring the Patna FIR to the CBI, it ought to have been despatched to Mumbai. It was for the Maharashtra authorities to take a name on sending the matter to the central company, he added.
Maninder Singh contradicted Divan, saying: “Political pressure is in Maharashtra and not in Bihar. Mumbai police are not cooperating. What are they hiding in this case?”
Singhvi stated Bihar didn’t have jurisdiction within the case in any respect.
“You may have screaming headlines, screaming anchors, comments from everywhere but that does not change the law. The court should look at the law. It’s not about Mumbai police and Bihar police. It’s about federalism and jurisdiction,” Singhvi submitted.
The sufferer’s household couldn’t resolve who ought to examine the case, he added.
“I have never seen this amount of sensationalism in a transfer petition. Every anchor and reporter has become an expert. Casualty is in the investigation and truth. I don’t know whether it was suicide but there is definite murder of the CrPC.” Singhvi stated.
Maninder Singh requested: “How many people were examined after June 25? The entire facade of undertaking an inquiry is entirely without jurisdiction. If you have to call anyone for an inquiry after you have filed post-mortem report, you must register an FIR.”
Regarding Maharashtra’s allegation that Bihar filed an FIR after a delay, he stated: “I (Bihar) registered the only FIR in this case as soon as I received a complaint. There is no delay by Bihar but there is a complete refusal by Maharashtra to register an FIR. Maybe there is political pressure in Maharashtra.”
He stated there was full non-cooperation by the Mumbai police.
“No documents have been shared. A senior officer of Bihar police sent to request Mumbai police to cooperate was virtually put under detention in the name of quarantine,” Maninder Singh instructed the highest court docket.
“Can I transfer something that I don’t own? Bihar is extremely generous in transferring something that it has no jurisdiction over,” Singhvi questioned.
Referring to Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, he pointed on the market was no consent of Maharashtra the place the incident occurred.
“The only exception to state consent is if and when the Supreme Court of India comes to a conclusion that there are ‘extraordinary circumstances’, then the Supreme Court can transfer an investigation,” Singhvi stated.