[Sushant Singh Rajput case] Rhea Chakraborty registers protest over media causing her extreme trauma in additional affidavit before SC

Actress Rhea Chakraborty has filed an additional affidavit before the Supreme Court in her Transfer Petition assailing the Bihar Police's jurisdiction in the investigation into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

She was earlier named by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the First Information Report lodged in the case after the Patna police transferred investigations.

Rhea Chakraborty had earlier moved the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of investigation from Patna to Mumbai.

Apart from questioning the manner in which the CBI has now assumed jurisdiction over the case, Chakraborty has also registered objection to media reports "sensationalizing the case" in her additional affidavit.

"Extreme trauma and infringement of privacy of the rights of the petitioner is caused due to constant sensationalisation of this case", the affidavit states.

In her affidavit, Rhea claims that the move to investigate her for her alleged involvement in Sushant Singh's death by the Patna police was based upon a misconstruction of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and "under political pressure."

Section 179, CrPC lays down that an offence is triable where the act is done or its consequence ensues.

Since the FIR does not disclose that the demise of Sushant Singh Rajput and the circumstances surrounding it took place in Bihar, the jurisdiction lies only with the jurisdictional court in Mumbai, Chakraborty avers.

Chakraborty submits that she has joined investigations launched by the Enforcement Directorate at Mumbai after she received a summons from the Zonal Office in Mumbai, despite the investigations being founded on allegations in the FIR filed in Bihar.

In her additional affidavit, she emphatically contends that Rajput Singh's father's residence at Patna is "no ground" to "usurp jurisdiction" and forward the case to the Magistrate at Patna.

Chakraborty's affidavit further questions the Patna Police's transfer of the case to the CBI. The CBI had assumed jurisdiction in the case on the grounds of ‘sensitivity’ and ‘inter-state ramifications’, the affidavit recites.

The affidavit challenges this ground of "sensitivity" as "alien" to criminal jurisprudence.

Adding to this, the affidavit submits that the transfer to the CBI was effected to annul the illegality of the Patna Police's assumption of jurisdiction.

Any transfer to the CBI has to be made with the consent of the transferring State. Since the State in this case, viz. Bihar has no jurisdiction, its consent is bad in law, Chakraborty contends.

She has argued that a question of improper jurisdiction would strike at the foundations of the CBI's investigation. However, she also expresses her willingness for a transfer of the case to the CBI if the Supreme Court so orders.

Towards the tail-end of her affidavit, she asks how her case came to be registered without jurisdiction even when there are pending investigations into cases involving financial irregularities amounting to "thousands of crores of rupees" that "do not see the light of day."

The affidavit has been filed through Advocate Malak Manish Bhatt.