Mumbai (Maharashtra):The prosecution was 'justified' in invoking stringent provisions of the NDPS Act pertaining to the illicit trafficking of drugs against Karishma Prakash, a special court here observed while denying pre-arrest bail to the manager of Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone in a drug case linked to the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The special NDPS court rejected Prakash's anticipatory bail plea on August 5 and a detailed copy of the order was made available on Wednesday. Her lawyer had pleaded that no prima facie material was brought before the court to show provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act Section 27A are attracted in the case.
Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act provides a stringent framework for punishing offences related to illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances through imprisonment and forfeiture of property. Her lawyer had argued that the prosecution has also not shown any material or evidence on which it wants to rely to justify the addition of the section during the hearing of her anticipatory bail application.
However, special judge V V Vidwans said, 'Considering the prima facie material and evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution was justified in invoking provisions of Section 27A of the NDPS Act during the pendency of this application.' The defence had vehemently argued that the only evidence against the applicant was statements of co-accused persons in the case. The same would not be admissible in view of a law laid by the Supreme Court, Prakash's lawyer had submitted.
But, the court said, 'Though statements of co-accused would not be admissible as evidence during the trial of the case, it can be considered by the court while deciding anticipatory bail application at the stage of the investigation as prima facie circumstance on record and material against the applicant.' During a hearing of the application, Prakash's lawyer had placed before that court a mobile phone recording to show 'malafides' on part of the prosecution while adding section 27(A) of the anti-drug law.