Bombay High Court: The jurisdiction of the FIR, initially lodged in Patna by Rajput’s family and later transferred to the CBI in Delhi, was a significant point of contention. Advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Prasanna Bhangale, representing Chakraborty, argued for Mumbai as the appropriate jurisdiction, given that both Rajput and Chakraborty were Mumbai residents and the CBI’s investigative activities were conducted there.
The Bombay High Court has recently concluded hearings and reserved its judgment regarding the plea by Bollywood actor Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their father to annul the Look-Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against them by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). These LOCs were initiated amidst the investigations into the tragic demise of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, restricting their international travel unless court permission is obtained. Rhea Chakraborty’s inability to honor her work commitments abroad due to the LOC has brought this issue to the forefront.
Also read- Kangana Ranaut Vs Javed Akhtar: Bombay High Court’s Verdict (lawchakra.in)
The bench, led by Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, scrutinized the CBI’s rationale behind issuing the LOCs based solely on the existence of an FIR, suggesting that the issuance did not necessarily imply a risk of the individuals absconding. This critical examination raises questions about the criteria used for restricting individuals’ movements through LOCs.
The jurisdiction of the FIR, initially lodged in Patna by Rajput’s family and later transferred to the CBI in Delhi, was a significant point of contention. Advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Prasanna Bhangale, representing Chakraborty, argued for Mumbai as the appropriate jurisdiction, given that both Rajput and Chakraborty were Mumbai residents and the CBI’s investigative activities were conducted there. Similarly, Advocate Ayaz Khan, representing Showik and their father, insisted on Mumbai’s jurisdiction for the trial, emphasizing that LOCs should be reserved for instances where the accused are actively avoiding arrest or court appearances, which was not the case here.
Also read- AP High Court: Grants Bail To Srinivasa Rao In Kodi-Kathi Case (lawchakra.in)
In response, CBI’s Advocate Shreeram Shirsat referenced a previous court decision that denied the transfer of the case to Mumbai to counter the jurisdiction argument. However, the bench expressed concerns over the prolonged nature of the investigation, which began in 2020 without a chargesheet being filed to date. They highlighted the need for a resolution, noting,
“There has to be some finality in a case. This is not financial fraud that will take so much time. In one case we saw that there was an LOC issued for a witness who could not go abroad to earn his livelihood. If such is the case, then which witness will come forward? There has to be some discretion as well. What are you fearing if the LOC is quashed? This is not a scam matter where it takes years to understand the nature of transactions. How long and how indefinitely can you curtail someone’s movement?”
Shirsat acknowledged the Chakrabortys’ cooperation with the investigation, stating,
“They have attended. And just because they are not being summoned does not mean that the investigation is not going on. The question over LOC is only about apprehension. Intention of the person cannot be found until they flee.”
Despite this, he could not provide a timeline for the filing of the chargesheet, prompting the bench to remark on the undue delay,
“Three and half years have passed, and the chargesheet should have seen the light of day.”
This case underscores the complexities and challenges within the legal and investigative processes, especially in high-profile cases involving public figures. The Bombay High Court’s upcoming decision on the LOCs will be closely watched, as it has broader implications for the balance between ensuring justice and upholding individuals’ rights to freedom of movement.