Tollywood actress Charmme Kaur obtained some relief in the ongoing drug investigation when the Hyderabad High Court ruled that samples of her blood, hair and nails could not be obtained without her consent.
The High Court on Tuesday afternoon passed orders on the
petition filed by the actress yesterday questioning the method of investigation by the SIT in the case.
Charmme's petition was mainly related to four issues in connection with the ongoing investigation in the drug scam for which she had been served notices by the SIT along with 11 others belonging to the film fraternity.
Firstly, the actress objected to "forcible" collection of blood samples from those being interrogated, and in this connection cited the example of Director Puri Jagannadh from whom blood, hair and nail samples were collected.
Secondly, the actress said that she was a lady coming from a reputed and respectable family and should not be subjected to long hours of questioning dragging till late into the night.
Thirdly, she insisted that only a lady officer interrogate her.
And fourthly, she said that the interrogation should be done only in the presence of her advocate.
The SIT probing the scandal described Charmme filing a petition in the High Court as a publicity stunt, and also intended to dilute and discredit the ongoing investigation to rid the society of the drug menace.
After hearing the arguments of the counsels of both the actress and the SIT in the morning, the court pronounced its order in the afternoon, conceding the actress' plea on the first three issues and dismissing her plea for the presence of her advocate while being questioned.
The court ruled that the interrogation of the actress by the SIT should be conducted between 10 am and 5 pm only, thus making it clear to the investigating authorities that the questioning could not be dragged on till late into the night as was done earlier in the case of other artistes.
It was further ruled that the interrogation of the actress should be conducted by only a lady officer and that too in the SIT office.
The court ruled that blood and other samples could not be obtained forcibly and without her consent. However, while in this aspect the actress might have achieved a victory, many other artistes and others who have been issued notices might now take her example and refuse to give blood samples.
After the pronouncement of the order by the court, Vishnuvardhan Reddy, the counsel for the actress, expressed satisfaction at the order as most of the issues raised by the petitioner had been accepted.