In her plea, Chakraborty had alleged “media trials” were being run against her to pronounce her guilty for the death of Sushant.

The counsel appearing on behalf of actor Rhea Chakraborty told the Supreme Court Tuesday that there appeared to be a considerable amount of “state interference, influence and therefore apprehension of bias” in Sushant Singh Rajput’s death case.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Chakraborty, told a bench headed by Justice Hrishikesh Roy that the FIR lodged by actor Rajput’s father had absolutely no connection with any offence in Patna. The top court was hearing a plea by Chakraborty for transfer of the FIR registered in Bihar to Mumbai in connection with Rajput’s death.

Divan said there was a “considerable delay” in registration of the FIR by Bihar Police, which “shows huge amount of political influence which has been used”.

Divan also called out the media trial against his client, saying it was undesirable. In her plea, Chakraborty had alleged “media trials” were being run against her to pronounce her guilty for the death of Sushant.

Justice Roy asked if the petitioner wanted a CBI inquiry besides the transfer of FIR. “Yes…I want fair probe…I believe correct course will be it ought to go 1st to Mumbai police and if CBI later needs to come into picture, it will,” Divan said.

Countering Divan’s charges, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Bihar, said there was non-cooperation from Maharashtra Police and Rajput’s postmortem report was not given to the Bihar police.

He also told the court that the FIR registered at Patna was the only FIR in the incident and there was no delay in its filing.

The Supreme Court had taken up Chakraborty’s petition for transfer of the case on August 5 and asked all parties to file their affidavits, saying “whether there is any criminality in the situation is the matter to be investigated”. In her affidavit, Chakraborty had stated that Rajput hailed from Bihar, and his death is being used ahead of the elections in the state. She claimed that the Bihar CM was “reported to be responsible for registration of the FIR in Patna”.

The Bihar and Maharashtra governments are also party to the case.