Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday praised late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s work in the film “MS Dhoni: The Untold Story” and said that one could make out from the actor’s face that he was a good human being.

The remarks were made by a bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik while reserving its verdict on a petition filed by Rajput’s sisters — Priyanka Singh and Meetu Singh — seeking to quash an FIR for alleged forgery and fabrication of a medical prescription for their brother.

“Whatever the case…from Sushant Singh Rajput’s face one could make out that he was innocent and sober…and a good human being,” Justice Shinde said.

“Everybody liked him especially in that MS Dhoni film,” the judge added.

The FIR was lodged against Priyanka Singh, Meetu Singh and doctor Tarun Kumar of Delhi’s Ram Manohar Lohia hospital by the suburban Bandra police on 7 September based on a complaint by Rajput’s girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty.

As per the complaint, the sisters and the doctor prepared a forged and fabricated prescription for anti-depressants for their brother.

Rajput, 34, was found dead in his suburban residence on 14 June, 2020.

His father KK Singh later lodged a case of abetment of suicide and cheating against Chakraborty and her family members.

The case is being probed by the CBI.

The Bandra police, after registration of the FIR against Rajput’s sisters, forwarded the case papers to the CBI as per the directions from the Supreme Court, which had said that all cases pertaining to the death of Rajput shall be probed by the CBI.

On Thursday, senior counsel Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of the sisters, argued that the Telemedicine Practice guidelines permitted a doctor to prescribe medicines after online consultation.

He added that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Rajput couldn’t go for physical consultation.

Singh added that even assuming that such a prescription was procured, there was no evidence to show that Rajput consumed any medicines.

Senior counsel Devdutt Kamat, appearing for the Mumbai police, however, claimed that no online consultation was done in this case.

He said that the WhatsApp chat between Rajput and his sister from 8 June, 2020 clearly shows that Priyanka Singh procured the prescription without any consultation between the doctor and the patient.

“The police has evidence to show that an unidentified man went to the OPD of the Ram Manohar Lohia hospital on 8 June, 2020 and took a token and later a prescription from the accused doctor Tarun Kumar,” Kamat said.

He added that as per the legal provisions, the Mumbai police registered FIR after receiving a complaint and forwarded the same to the CBI.

Advocate Satish Maneshinde, appearing for Chakraborty, sought dismissal of the petition and said that one of the circumstances that may have led to Rajput’s death was the “dangerous cocktail of drugs and narcotic substances and medicines”.

“Rajput was under Rhea’s care for 14 months before 8 June, 2020 when he asked her to leave the house. During that period, Rhea ensured that Rajput took his medicines and never mixed them with drugs,” Maneshinde said.

“Rajput’s cook and servant on June 8, 2020 saw the actor roll four joints (drugs) and keep it in a box. On 14 June, when the actor was found dead in his room, the box was empty. This has been informed by the servant to the authorities,” he said.

Maneshinde added that the CBI should probe the case and if it comes to the conclusion that there is no case, then it can file a closure report.

“The complainant then has the option to file a protest petition. Quashing the FIR at this stage would be premature,” he told the court.

The bench directed the lawyers to submit their written submissions and reserved its order.

Translate »
Legal Notice: Views expressed in articles published in www.ebusinessbrief.com are those of the authors and www.ebusinessbrief.com or its owners take no responsibility regarding the same. Advertisements in www.ebusinessbrief.com are published for information of the subscribers. www.ebusinessbrief.com does not authenticate, endorse or guarantee any of the products or services or claims made by the Advertisers. Readers are advised to themselves verify the details. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without prior written permission from the Editor. Permission is normally granted wherever sufficient acknowledgement is given to www.ebusinessbrief.com.