Euinac Legalite

The Bombay High Court on Monday observed that there was a prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh, the sister of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput, in the FIR lodged against her at the instance of Rhea Chakraborty alleging criminal conspiracy and abetment to su***de of Sushant Singh.

The Court has however quashed the proceedings against another sister of Sushant, Meetu Singh, who was also named as an accused in the FIR. "There is prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh and there should not be any impediment against investigation against her", a bench comprising Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed. The Court said that the FIR will survive as regards Priyanka Singh and Dr Tarun Kumar of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital Delhi, on whose prescription the medicines were allegedly procured for Sushant by Priyanka Singh. The FIR was registered on a complaint by actor Rhea Chakraborty against the sisters and Dr. Tarun Kumar - an associate professor of cardiology from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, on September 7, 2020 under sections 420(cheating) and 306(abetment of su***de), under the Indian Penal Code, as well as offences related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation that is looking into the late actor's death. Chakraborty has alleged that the medicines provided by Sushant's sister combined with the joint given to him by the house help may have led him to take his life on June 14, 2020. The sisters, in their petition filed by advocate Madhav Thorat, have cited discrepancies in Chakraborty's statement in the complaint and in an interview to say that the "complaint is an afterthought and only filed to digress the investigation in the death of the late actor." They have further cited a 91-day delay in registration of FIR.

Follow .legalite

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that AAP MLAs Raghav Chadha and Atishi Marlena cannot be allowed to hold a protest outside the residence of Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal as the political gathering is prohibited as per the orders of the Delhi Disaster Management Act (DDMA) till January 31, 2021.

It further said in view of the sensitive nature of the area which is residence of the dignitaries, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is imposed prohibiting protests and demonstrations in the Central Delhi area. 

The reply has been filed in the petitions filed by Chadha and Atishi, who want to hold a peaceful protest in order to voice the misappropriation of funds by the BJP-led North Delhi Municipal Corporation amounting to more than Rs 2,500 crore, which is a serious concern of the citizens of NCT of Delhi, according to the petitioners. 

The present matter was listed today before Justice Prathiba M. Singh but no hearing took place as the counsel for police had sought an adjournment as the proceedings were to be held in a physical court.

In its affidavit, the police has also said that protests in the national capital can only be held at two locations, Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan, which are designated for the purpose and nowhere else.

The Police has also said in its affidavit that in view of the DDMA notification of September last year, which was extended from time to time and now stands extended till January 31, no political gathering of any number of persons is permitted in the national capital. 

The Delhi Police in their affidavit has cited the Supreme Court judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324 wherein the Court, while upholding the right of citizens to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, had directed the Commissioner of Police to frame appropriate guidelines for regulation of protests and demonstrations. 

Follow .legalite

High Court took note of ground realities and practical problems The judgment of the High Court(Safiya Sulthana v State of UP), which came in a habeas corpus petition filed by a couple, makes a note of this unintended consequence of the procedure under the SMA.

Follow .legalite