In a significant turn of events, the Bombay High Court has held in abeyance its decision on the petition by actor Rhea Chakraborty and her family, seeking annulment of the Look-Out Circular (LOC) that has been a hurdle in their international travel. The legal instruments were put in place by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as it probes the circumstances surrounding the demise of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their father had approached the high court, challenging the LOC that effectively prevented them from leaving the country without approval from the judicial system. The circular has thus far blocked Rhea from engaging in certain work commitments overseas.
A previous hearing in the high court had awarded Rhea temporary relief, allowing her a brief sojourn to Dubai for a professional engagement. However, a permanent solution in the form of quashing the LOC remained the objective of the plea.
The session, presided over by Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, scrutinized the rationale of the CBI regarding the issuance of the LOC based purely on an FIR. The locus of the FIR, originally lodged by Rajput’s family in Patna, subsequently paved the way for a CBI takeover in Delhi—a move that brought into sharp focus the question of jurisdiction.
Advocates Abhinav Chandrachud and Prasanna Bhangale, representing the Chakraborty family, laid emphasis on the relevance of Mumbai as the proper jurisdiction for the case deliberations. They argued that the lives and investigations of both Rajput and Chakraborty were entrenched in Mumbai, making it the appropriate venue for legal proceedings.
Ayaz Khan, the attorney for Showik and their father, asserted that LOCs are instruments reserved for situations where there is a tangible risk of the accused evading legal processes or arrest. The implication was that their case did not fit these criteria. On the other hand, CBI’s legal representative, Shreeram Shirsat, pointed to a previous court decision that rejected the transfer of the case to Mumbai, suggesting that there was precedence in the matter of jurisdiction.
Beyond the legal technicalities of the LOC, the Bombay High Court also voiced its discontent with the protracted nature of the case and, notably, the delay in filing the chargesheet—a document critical to the advancement of any legal case. Given that Sushant Singh Rajput’s untimely death occurred in mid-2020, the court underscored the necessity for a resolution and questioned the extended timeline for concluding the investigation.
Directing a question at the CBI, the court lamented on the potential impact of such delays and LOCs on individuals and witnesses who depend on the ability to travel abroad for earning their livelihood. This scenario could possibly deter potential witnesses from stepping forward if their basic rights are curtailed.
Acknowledging the cooperation of Rhea Chakraborty in the ongoing investigations, Shreeram emphasized that the absence of routine summonses was not indicative of a stalled investigation. He stated that the LOC was essentially about the prevention of flight risk, and the true intentions of a person come to light only when they attempt to abscond.
In conclusion, the bench highlighted the significance of swift justice and lamented the fact that after three and a half years the investigative processes had yet to culminate in a chargesheet. With the order on the LOC now reserved, the focus remains on how the judiciary balances the rights of the individuals in question with the imperatives of an ongoing criminal investigation.
