Rhea and Sanjana 'provide list of drug users': Is this enough to make a case?

Three actors – Rhea Chakraborty, Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjana Galrani – have been questioned in different drug related cases in the last week.
Rhea Chakraborty and Sanjana Galrani
Rhea Chakraborty and Sanjana Galrani

In the last week, there are three cases of alleged drug use in the Indian film industries that have caused a stir. One, in the ongoing case around actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, and the investigation into his girlfriend and actor Rhea Chakraborty’s alleged involvement. She was arrested last week by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to be questioned about the drug abuse angle in Sushant’s death. She has been booked under sections of the National Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act as well. Lately, there have been source-based reports about Rhea, who has been booked under various sections of the Narcotics, has named several prominent actors in a ‘list’ to the NCB, who were also consuming the drugs.  

The other two cases are against Sandalwood actors Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjana Galrani who were held by the Central Crime Branch in Bengaluru the past week. The police have arrested as many as 10 people in connection with the investigation into the alleged procurement, distribution and usage of drugs. While no drugs were found in possession of the actors as material evidence, the Central Crime Branch (CCB) which is investigating the case has said that there is digital evidence indicating the crimes. CCB officials told TNM that they are looking at the chat history of accused persons. Media reports claimed that Sanjjana Galrani gave a list of names to the police who are allegedly connected to the case. However, this is yet to be confirmed by the CCB.

In both of the above instances, media organisaions have reported the existence of these ‘lists’, source-based claims, and reportedly some electronic evidence, such as screenshots. In Rhea's case, there have been contradictory reports- both denying and claiming- that she named Rakul Preet, Sara Ali Khan and others. In Sanjana'a case, some reports say she has named 10 people. However, given that the instances of consumption or possession of the drugs is not current but seems to have happened – if at all – in the past, where do these cases stand legally?

Rizwan Merchant, an advocate, explained that time of the alleged consumption, procurement or possession at present notwithstanding, if a disclosure is made under the NDPS Act comes to light, it has to be registered because it is a cognizable offence. “However, the evidentiary value of what proof is collected is very important in such cases,” he says.

KBK Swamy, an advocate based in Bengaluru, also said that while there is no limitation on invoking criminal action against those accused, “merely because an accused has taken names of other persons is not enough for the police to frame charges.” He adds, “If the offence has taken place in the past and the police want to prosecute the person named during an investigation, police need to get corroborative evidence.”

However, the people named can be called in for questioning. At the same time, if the incidents are not current, then taking urine, or hair samples is not necessarily the kind of evidence that the police can use for corroboration in such cases. “If the police take samples, only the presence of narcotics in samples or other tangible evidence will count. Otherwise, it’s just like punching the air, which will have no impact,” Swamy says.

Electronic evidence, Rizwan says, is admissible in court. However, it has to be primary evidence – which means that while the phone from which a message is sent is primary evidence, a screenshot is not. He adds that based on the evidence, the charges are going to be more severe for someone accused of peddling, rather than someone accused of consumption.

The advocates also say that one should take media reports on these issues with a pinch of salt. “This is information that the NCB would never disclose even in the remand application. Even from the statement, they will only include that portion in the remand that is sufficient for them to get custody. They will never disclose what is the confession, who are the other persons named etc,” he says, referring to the reported ‘lists’ of people who have been named in the drug cases. “Because if they reveal these names, then the persons will create a defense for themselves or will disappear. I would be wary of a lot of this information that’s coming on electronic media at this point.”

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com