CBI asks Rhea’s parents why she left Rajput’s home and blocked his mobile number
The Bombay High Court on Thursday advised the media in clear-cut terms to exercise “restraint” while reporting on the Sushant Singh Rajput death case and not to file stories in manner that will hamper the probe in the case.
The CBI questioned Rhea’s father Indajit Chakraborty for the third consecutive day on Thursday for five hours. During the questioning, the CBI once against asked Indrajit about his daughter’s relations with Rajput and the actor’s family, the reason for Rhea leaving Rajput’s home and blocking the latter’s mobile number and Rhea’s role in managing the late actor’s financial matters.
Hearing a public interest litigation filed by eight retired police officers who held top positions in the Maharashtra police to stop a section of the electronic media from “influencing the course of investigations” in Sushant’s death case through “biased and false” reporting, the high court took serious cognisance of the questionable “media coverage” of the actor’s death case and asked the media “not to hamper the investigations” in any manner.
“We urge and expect the media to exercise restraint in reporting of the investigation with respect to the (Rajput) death, which should not hamper the investigation in any manner,” the Bombay High Court said.
A HC division bench comprising Justice AA Sayed and Justice SP Tavade — which is also hearing another similar petition filed by three activists — stated that it would hear the matter further after hearing as to what the Union Government and the CBI, which is probing the case, have to say in response to the pleas. The HC bench posted the two petitions for further hearing on September 10.
In their PIL, the petitioners - all of whom were of the officers of the Director General of Police rank at the time of their retirement and enjoy formidable reputation - stated in their petition, “A section of TV channels has been trying to influence the course of investigation being done by the Central agencies through their biased reporting and false propaganda. This has created an air of suspicion in the minds of the general public as to the facts of the case under investigation and about the Mumbai police, health services and other support services in the State.”
“The anchors of some TV channels have virtually been running a vituperative 24X7 campaign against the Mumbai police and its chief, that is the Commissioner of Police, the DCP of the zone and other officers by attacking them by name in the most becoming manner,” they stated.
The eight petitioners - MN Singh, Dr PS Pasricha, DN Jadhav, D Shivanandan, Sanjeev Dayal, K Subramaniam, SC Mathur and KP Raghuvanshi - went on to say, “This irresponsible and maliciously false propaganda is likely to erode the public confidence in the institution of police in particular and the law enforcement apparatus in general. Mumbai police is one of the oldest police forces of India and it has always enjoyed a very high reputation for professional competence and public service. Any malicious and irresponsible attempt to run it down is, therefore, not in public interest.”
“The adverse media campaign against the Mumbai police appears to have been designed with sinister motives. Reporting is being done recklessly with preconceived notions, coupled with consistent and deliberate failure to report fully and correctly. which with respect, is aimed at systematic and continued tarnishing of the fair image of the Mumbai police without cogent basis, apart from causing hindrance in the investigation of the case by the police/CBI and other agencies,” the retired police officers stated in their petition.
In their PIL filed through a prominent law firm, Crawford, Bayley & Company’s Senior Advocate Milind Sathe, the retired police officers have made the Union and State Governments, Press Council of India and News Broadcasters’ Association as respondents in the case.
In the second PIL, by filmmaker Nilesh Navlakha, journalist MD Shaikh and retired bureaucrat SC Chaba, filed by lawyers Rajesh Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat said the media had flouted norms of Press Council of India and programme code under the Cable TV Act.
“We are all for the freedom of the press. It is the fourth estate... this country will survive only if there is a vibrant media but the media has certain responsibilities, which if transgressed will destroy the administration of justice”, Kamat argued in his submission before the HC bench.
On Thursday, the CBI also questioned Cornerstone Sports and Entertainment Pvt Ltd CEO Bunty Sajdeh, who is the brother-in-law of Indian cricketer Rohit Sharma and Bollywood actor Sohail Khan, in the Rajput death case.
In a related development, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) questioned Varun Mathur, Director of Innasei Ventures, in a connection with a Sushant death-related money laundering case registered by it.
The information that surfaced in the investigations shows that Mathur launched the company with Rajput in April 2018. The investigators asked Mathur about the Rajput’s investment in the firm. It also tried to find out from Mathur as to what kind of business that Innasei Ventures, in which the late actor was a director, was doing.
Whether Sushant was only a Director along with Mathur and Saurabh Mishra, it wanted to know.
Meanwhile, Sushant’s former manager Shruti Modi’s advocate Ashok Saraogi contested Rajput’s family lawyer Vikas Singh’s claim that the actor had no insurance policy. “When a rickshaw puller can have a policy…Rajput was such a big actor and it’s practically impossible that he didn’t have an insurance policy. This angle should be investigated because if there is an insurance policy we need to see who the beneficiary is,” Sarogi said.
Meanwhile, a Mumbai court on Thursday remanded an alleged contraband dealer, who has been arrested in connection with the drugs trafficking case linked to the case of actor Rajput’s death, in the custody of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) till September 9.
Zaid Vilatra (21) was produced before a metropolitan magistrate’s court which remanded him in NCB’s custody for seven days for further probe in the case.
The NCB had said on Wednesday it had arrested Vilatra and one Basit Parihar in connection with the Rajput death-linked drug trafficking case
“We have recovered Indian currency worth Rs 9,55,750 and foreign currency (USD 2,081, 180 British Pounds, 15 dirhams), which the NCB claimed are “proceeds of drug peddling”, were recovered from Vilatra,” a NCB official had said.
Zaid runs an eatery at Bandra in north-west Mumbai which, he told the NCB was not giving any pecuniary gains since lockdown.
The NCB official said Zaid was allegedly into drug peddling, especially bud, through which he used to earn a substantial amount of money.
A resident of suburban Bandra, Parihar is “learnt to have linkages” with the narcotics case registered against Rajput’s girlfriend and actress Rhea and others, officials said.
The role of Rhea’s brother Showik Chakraborty and his purported links with people nabbed by NCB are under the scanner of the NCB.
Rajput was found hanging from ceiling fan in his closed room of a duplex flat at Mont Blanc building at Bandra’s Carter Road on June 14.
Rhea, her parents Indrajit and Sandhya Chakraborty, her brother Showik, Sushaant’s ex-manager Shruti Manager Shruti Modi and others have been named in an FIR lodged by the actor’s father KK Singh with Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna. It was on the basis of this FIR that the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the Sushant Singh Rajput death case to the CBI on August 19.
Rhea, her parents, her brother and others have been booked as part of this FIR under sections 341 (wrongful restraint) 342 (wrongful confinement, 380 (theft), 406 (breach of trust),420 (cheating), 306 ( abetting suicide) and 120-B ( conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The CBI, ED and NCB are investigating the case from different angles.