Rhea is not a drug dealer: Bombay HC's statement in Rhea's case

Actor Rhea Chakraborty was granted bail on Wednesday by the Bombay High Court. She was arrested on several charges in the drugs case linked to the sudden demise of actor Sushant Singh Rajput by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the apex anti-drug agency in the country on September 8.

Here is what the Bombay High Court observed in its verdict on Wednesday:

1. The Bombay High Court said it doesn’t think that celebrities and role models should be treated harshly so that it sets an example for the young generation.

2. “I do not agree. Everybody in equal before law. No celebrity or role model enjoys any special privilege before the court of law. Similarly, such person also does not incur any special liability when he faces law in the courts. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits irrespective of the status of the accused,” the High Court stated.

3. The High Court said in its bail order that she is not a part of drug dealers in the following words, “She is not part of drug dealers. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary or other benefits”.

4. “Since she has no criminal antecedents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” the High Court said.

5.  The High Court further noted that there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of any offence punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act or  any other offence involving commercial quantity.

6. "The material at the highest shows that she has committed an offence involving contraband, but, the crucial element of incurring rigours of Section 37 in respect of commercial quantity is missing", the Court observed.

7. While discarding the order of the Special Judge denying her bail on the ground that she might destroy evidence, the High Court said, "The learned Special Judge has observed that the Applicant may alert others and evidence can be destroyed by them. There is no basis for such observation. It is also important to note that when the Applicant was produced before the Court for her first remand, the investigating agency did not seek her custody. That means, they are satisfied with her interrogation and she had cooperated in that investigation".