Sushant Singh Rajput: Supreme Court reserves verdict in Rhea Chakraborty plea seeking transfer of investigation to Mumbai

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in the plea filed by Bollywood actor Rhea Chakraborty seeking the transfer of the FIR filed on a complaint made against her by Sushant Singh Rajput's father from Patna to Mumbai.

The order was reserved by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, who had earlier asked the Mumbai Police to submit the investigation status report before the Court.

Today, the Court was informed by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Rhea Chakraborty, that all parties have filed their replies. The Mumbai Police submitted that the investigation is being carried out satisfactorily.

Divan argued that the FIR was registered against Chakraborty in Patna without jurisdiction to do so. Arguing in favour of transferring the matter to the Mumbai Police's jurisdiction, he said,

The only connection the case has with Patna is that Sushant Singh Rajput's father lives there, Divan added. He expressed confidence in the investigation conducted thus far, wherein 56 witnesses have been questioned.

Referring to the probe being transferred from Patna to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Divan said,

"There cannot be an executive action to nullify your Lordship's order".

The order of the Bihar Governor and invocation of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to bring in the CBI cannot override a Section 406 petition for transferring investigation from one state to another, Divan argued.

The apprehension of politicisation of the tragic incident was also raised by Divan. He said that there is a "considerable amount of political influence" involved in registration of the FIR at Bihar, which was done on the insistence of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and political leader Sanjay Jha. He said,

"When the Court is considering ends of justice, it is important to consider political bias, the fact that nothing happened in Bihar, and also the substantial delay in registering FIR."

Moreover, in addition to an apprehension of political bias, there is an undesirable media trial being conducted against the petitioner, he said.

The Court inquired as to whether or not Chakraborty is batting for a CBI inquiry considering she has called for the CBI's intervention in her additional affidavit. Divan submitted that what the petitioner is looking for is a fair probe by a fair agency.

Questioning the role and conduct of the Mumbai Police, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Bihar Police, said that the political class of Maharashtra came under the scanner. The Mumbai Police, even after the post mortem, has not yet registered an FIR, Singh said. He argued that procedural law mandates either closure of investigation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or filing of an FIR after post mortem.

Refuting Divan's submissions on possibility of political pressure and bias in Bihar, Singh said that it is in fact in Maharashtra that the political class has a role. He argued,

Countering Divan's arguments, Singh said that the Mumbai Police's investigation is one without jurisdiction in the absence of a registered FIR.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Maharashtra, launched a sharp attack on Bihar's position in the matter terming it "absolutely without jurisdiction" and a case of "subverting federalism". He said,

"Murder of the CrPc is being attempted in this case where jurisdiction is a casualty!"

Stressing on the cause of action and facts of the case, Singhvi said that Bihar is seeking a "jurisdictionless probe" and alleged that the desperation of Bihar to take over this investigation is fuelled by the upcoming Assembly elections.

Relying heavily on the provisions of the CrPC, Singhvi said that the question of law involved is that of federalism and jurisdiction and without the Court's finding on perversity of the investigation by Mumbai Police, the CBI cannot come in.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Sushant Singh Rajput's father, also questioned Mumbai Police's progress in the case and argued that if this is a case of murder, the same needs to be probed.

Vikas Singh said that the possibility of foul play in Rajput's death is an angle that needs to explored, considering nobody saw Rajput hanging, and that the marks visible on his neck suggest a belt may have been used. Rajput's father sought to register an FIR as soon as his mourning was over, he submitted.

Questioning the intention of the Mumbai Police, he also highlighted the mandatory quarantining of the IPS officer who arrived in Mumbai from Bihar.

The CBI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, supported the Bihar Police's averment that the exercise carried out in Mumbai is not investigation according to the law, in the absence of an FIR.

"Investigation only as per CrPC is going on in Bihar as there is no such investigation in Mumbai. Even Enforcement Directorate is investigating the case. What Dr Singhvi has submitted in sealed envelope is not a part of the case diary."

While Divan called the situation around the case "charged" and "extremely politicised", Maninder Singh highlighted allegations of the involvement of the Maharashtra's CM's son. Mehta batted for a CBI probe, while Singhvi questioned the CBI's eagerness to look into the case.

After a hearing that lasted around two hours, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict. The parties are to file their written submissions by tomorrow.

Earlier, the Mumbai Police had informed the Supreme Court in its affidavit that all the initial statements by Sushant Singh Rajput's family recorded in connection with his June 14 death do not indicate any suspicion on the cause of death, apart from suicide.

The Mumbai Police submitted its investigation status report in a sealed envelope and has averred that pending the adjudication of the transfer plea, the CBI ought not have gone ahead and registered the FIR or constitued a committee for conducting the investigation.

On the point of jurisdiction, Mumbai Police states that even the FIR registered in Bihar acknowledges that Sushant was not allowed to visit Patna to meet his family. Thus, even the offence of wrongful restraint would have occurred in Mumbai.

On the other hand, Bihar Police has stated before the Supreme Court that Rhea Chakraborty's plea seeking transfer of the FIR from Patna to Mumbai is not maintainable.

In its affidavit filed in the Apex Court, the Bihar Police averred that Section 406 of the CrPC cannot be invoked for transferring investigation from one state to another.

However, now the CBI has registered its FIR in the case after taking over the probe from the Bihar Police. It has named Rhea Chakraborty and her family members as accused.

The Centre has also moved Supreme Court seeking to make itself a party to Rhea Chakraborty’s petition.

Even as the tug of war for jurisdiction to investigate the case continued between the CBI and the Mumbai Police, Chakraborty filed an additional affidavit before the Supreme Court assailing the Bihar Police's jurisdiction in the investigation.

Apart from questioning the manner in which the CBI has now assumed jurisdiction over the case, Chakraborty 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.

On July 30, Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case lodged against her and others in relation to the suicide of Sushant Singh Rajput.

The transfer petition states that the FIR in Patna alleging abetment to suicide charges against Chakraborty is nothing but an act of "connivance" between the State of Bihar and the father of the late Sushant Singh Rajput.

(Read order)