Thread by @barandbench

(Sandalwood Drugs Case)

#SupremeCourt to shortly hear appeal by Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events organized by her and others, against a Karnataka HC order denying her bail

Senior Adv Siddharth Luthra: she is an actress and in custody now since 140 days. There is no recovery of contraband and the only allegation is co accused Ravishankar statement against me. Thus they say I finance the drugs. Only 1.5 gm ecstasy consumption was stated

Justice Nariman: all this is the argument of the prosecutor

Luthra: it was alleged that Dwivedi had replaced water with urine sample in an attempt to tamper with lab results to trace drugs.

Luthra: Remand application notes that there was no such swap. It's unfortunate that I was roped in.

Senior Adv Luthra: There is no bar under Section 37 of NDPS act in this case. This lady is in custody since 140 days. There is no recording of any information regarding me and the search warrant was taken in another case. Thus there is a breach of Section 42.

Justice KM Joseph: Section 42 breach is only when warrant is not there

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: This is not a case for personal consumption of drugs. Accused had been organising rave parties and supply drugs.

Senior Advocate Luthra: They have statements of drivers etc. But the main statement is of Ravishankar and that only attributes a gram of consumption to me.

SC: it transpires that in case the petitioner is an actress. Her residence was searched and a statement of Ravishankar was relied on. Search warrant which was obtained and search yielded the following items ..... ()... Thereafter the complaint was filed by police..

#SupremeCourt: trial court had rejected her application citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Her bail was denied. HC relied upon statement by Ravishankar. Having been through entire proceedings by Mr Luthra.

SC: A few thing become apparent, pursuant to search at premise no drugs was found. The case against Dwivedi was based on statement by Ravishankar. The maximum that could be said was peritoner consumed drugs at the party..

SC: Petitioner has already been arrested on a conspiracy charge on which no chargesheet has been filed. Though petitoner was charged with violating Section 21, 22 of NDPS act, prima facie only an offence of Section 27 of consumption of drugs at party can be made out.

SC: Section 37 was wrongly invoked by HC and sessions judge. With Section 37 out of the way, this is a case bail must follow. HC judgment set aside, and Ragini Dwivedi enlarged on bail
Others on appeal here also enlarged on bail

#SupremeCourt