Three days after she was first called for questioning, Rhea Chakraborty was arrested on Tuesday and remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody. Here’s everything you need to know about the case
Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; September 9, 2020)

SECTIONS UNDER WHICH RHEA HAS BEEN CHARGED AND WHAT THEY MEAN

Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22, 27(a), 28 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

SECTION 8(C): This section deals with an array of narcotics-related offences. It refers to and prohibits a range of activities — producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, storing in a warehouse, use, consumption, import inter-state, export inter-state, import into India, export from India or tranship — pertaining to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes.

SECTION 20 AND 20(B): Section 20 deals with marijuana or cannabis offences. Under it, Section 20(b) talks about the punishment for production, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting among others. This could be imprisonment for 10-20 years with a fine up to Rs 2 lakh, depending on the quantity of the prohibited substance.

SECTION 22: This deals with punishments with regard to contravention (going against the law) in relation to psychotropic substances, including activities like manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing interstate, exports inter-state or using any psychotropic substance. Punishment can lead to rigorous imprisonment for six months to 20 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2 lakh depending on the quantity of the prohibited drug.

SECTION 27(A): It deals with punishment for financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders. The punishment could go up to 20 years in jail and a fine up to Rs. 2 lakh

SECTION 28: This talks about the punishment for attempts to commit offences.

SECTION 29: This details the punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.

WHAT THE LEGAL EXPERTS SAY

CHARGES WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DEMONSTRATE, ESTABLISH AND PROVE
In the present case, there is nothing except statement/s of the co-accused, which have been recorded before a police officer and not before a magistrate. There is nothing to demonstrate that she (Rhea) was in possession of any drug, except circumstantial evidence. The sections alleged against her are about possession, transportation, financing illicit trafficking, etc. of banned substances. The NCB has pressed all the possible sections that they could, but it would be difficult for them to demonstrate, establish and prove it with evidence. As such, bail is possible in such matters.

– ADVOCATE DIPESH MEHTA

MANY FACTORS GOVERN IF AN OFFENCE IS BAILABLE
Everything boils down to what the allegation is against Rhea. Whether her offence is bailable or not, depends entirely on the details of the matter — the quantity of drugs found, consumed, transported, procured, stored, abetment for its procurement and so on.

– ADVOCATE SUDEEP PASBOLA

IF A CO-ACCUSED TURNS APPROVER, A LOT WILL DEPEND ON THE TESTIMONY
After applying these sections, agencies will have to investigate and establish that she was in possession and sold or purchased cannabis and other prohibited substances. We have to see the FIR and investigation details to know the substances mentioned. These sections do talk about some offences that are non-bailable in nature. Eventually, it will all depend on the confessions that will come into the picture. It’s a myth that you’re an offender only if you have been caught with the banned substance. You are an offender even if you had knowledge of an offence and you stayed mum and have committed the offence. In this case, there may be statements from the coaccused. If one of them turns approver, then she will have to further explain her role in the matter. A lot will also depend on the testimony of the approver.

– ADVOCATE HITESH JAIN

NO SUBSTANCE RECOVERED, CASE PROCEEDS ON WHATSAPP CHATS
There is an interesting aspect in the charges against Rhea. The offences under Section 28 of NDPS Act essentially deal with attempts to commit an offence as opposed to the rest of the sections, which deal with offences already allegedly committed. Obviously, an attempt to commit an offence cannot be alleged along with the commission of an offence. In simple words, either you make an attempt to commit an offence or you actually commit it — the two obviously don’t go together. Another feature of this episode is that in all probability, there has been no recovery of any narcotic substance and the case proceeds primarily on WhatsApp chats, which, even if proved on the anvil of testimony, cannot establish beyond doubt that the alleged narcotics were used, since there is no cogent proof of the existence of such narcotics, as alleged.

– ADVOCATE VIVEK VIDYARTHI

With inputs from: Neha Maheshwri