The bail hearings of actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan, co-accused Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha in a case related to the alleged drugs busted on a cruise ship will continue before the Bombay High Court on Thursday, when the Narcotics Control Bureau will hear the defense lawyers. Presents its response to the arguments.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Amit Desai, representing the merchant, argued before a single-judge bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre that the NCB’s arrest in the case was “illegal” as the agency was not complying with the procedure under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. failed in CrPC), which orders the investigating officer to issue a notice of presence before arrest.
Desai also argued that as per the previous High Court judgments and provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, WhatsApp chats were not acceptable in court. The counsel argued that the businessman should be granted bail as he was booked for allegedly possessing narcotics in small quantities, and “not in commercial quantities”, and had not been medically examined.
Desai referred to Tuesday’s special court order granting bail to two others, Evin Sahu and Manish Rajgaria, in the case.
“Conspiracy charges were leveled against them (two who got bail) and NCB’s reply was similar to that of Arbaaz and Aryan. He has also been charged with possessing narcotics in his possession. Even though the special court’s decision is not binding on this court (high court), we are not on equality but on liberty. They were two free people. There was no connection between all these people arrested,” Desai said.
Aryan, Merchant and Dhamecha have been in custody since October 2, when they were detained ahead of an alleged rave party on a cruise ship. The trio had approached the high court last Wednesday after a special court under the NDPS Act rejected their bail pleas.
Senior advocate and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Aryan, had on Tuesday termed his arrest as “arbitrary”.
On Wednesday, Rohatgi said that the NCB’s remand application did not contain “true and correct facts” and that his client was entitled to be informed about the right to arrest and bail under Section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22 of the Constitution, which was not followed.
Representing Merchant, Desai argued: “Why arrest is required when the offense of possession was committed only under the NDPS Act?”
Desai said: “They are using only WhatsApp chats to keep us in custody, which happened before the incident. There is no WhatsApp chat in any way supporting the conspiracy theory. They (equipment) were confiscated but there is no panchnama. There is speculation about drug trafficking on the basis of this, it is absurd.”
Advocate Ali Kashif Khan Deshmukh, representing Dhamecha, argued that there was no material against him and he had no connection with the other accused. full report on
.