The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan, in the cruise ship drug case in which Khan is the prime accused..The plea was allowed by single-judge Justice Nitin Sambre.The Court also granted bail to two other co-accused Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha."All applications are allowed," the Court ordered. The detailed order setting out conditions for bail will be pronounced tomorrow, the judge added..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi prayed for submission of cash surety for Aryan Khan, but the same was rejected by Justice Sambre. .Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, representing the NCB, told the High High Court today that the case against the accused is not for consumption but for 'conscious possession and plan to consume'.In this regard, the ASG highlighted Section 29 of the NDPS Act which deals with conspiracy."Section 29 does not say that the person has to be in possession. He made an attempt to deal with commercial quantity," the ASG said.In this regard, Singh highlighted the WhatsApp chats of Khan and said that the subsequent recovery of drugs from eight co-accused corroborated what was stated in WhatsApp chats."It cannot be a coincidence that so many people on the cruise, 8 were found with drugs and there was multiple varieties," the ASG said.Further, he also said that the total quantity of drugs recovered is 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act. The ASG pointed how as per WhatsApp chats they were going to the cruise for having a 'blast' and the Charas recovered from Arbaaz Merchant was meant for the consumption of both of them/"They are going inside to have a “blast”. The charas was meant for smoke during cruise journey. They were in possession though physically with Arbaaz. And it was for their consumption. it was for both of them. This is further elaborated in other records," he contended..The ASG also said that the rigours of Section 37 (on restrictions on grant of bail) kicks in because the NCB has invoked offences under Sections 28 (attempt to commit offence) and 29 (conspiracy) of NDPS Act..On the petitioner's contention that the arrest was illegal and charge of conspiracy was not present in arrest memo but was invoked later as an afterthought, the ASG said that the lawyers of the accused were made aware within four hours (after arrest) and any infirmity was rectified as soon as remand order was given. "It is not that they were not aware of Sections 28 and 29. In the remand copy four hours later these were added. The lawyers were aware. My contention is that there are three orders of remand which have not been challenged. They cannot come now and say that arrest was illegal," Singh said. They have still not challenged the remand orders, he added."My contention is he was found in possession. He was connected with drug peddlers. It was commercial quantity. Hence we invoked 28 and 29. It was only 4 hours (after arrest) and they were aware of the grounds," the ASG maintained.The WhatsApp chats also buttress the case against him, he said while also showing Section 65B certificate with respect to the same as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act. Rohatgi, representing Khan, then proceeded to make rejoinder submissions. "There was no conspiracy because there was no meeting of minds. There was no discussion that they will meet, that they will get the substance and smoke - that is conspiracy," he said."If there are people in a hotel in different rooms and they smoke are all people in hotel in conspiracy? There is no material for calling it a conspiracy in this case," he further said.He also maintained that the only person he knew was Arbaaz Merchant."I knew only Arbaaz, I did not know anyone else. It is true it is difficult to prove that there is common meeting of mind. but facts cannot be ignored. There has to be meeting of minds. how can there be conscious possession for 6 grams (the amount recovered from Merchant)," Rohatgi submitted..Khan was taken into custody by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on October 2, 2021 after the NCB raided a cruise ship en route to Goa from Mumbai.He was placed under arrest on October 3 and charged with offences under Section 8(c), 20(b), 27, 28, 29 and 35 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.He was remanded to NCB custody till October 4, which was extended till October 7.Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody after which he immediately moved for bail.Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate RM Nerlikar had rejected the bail application, holding that it was not maintainable as only the special court of sessions was entitled to hear the bail plea.Subsequently, Khan moved the special court under the NDPS Act seeking bail which came to be rejected on Wednesday, October 20 prompting the present appeal before the High Court..Khan in his bail plea, contended that NCB was misinterpreting his WhatsApp chats to implicate him in the case.Further, Khan submitted that he has no connection with any of the co-accused arrested in the case except two of them - Arbaaz Merchant and Aachit Kumar - who had invited him to the party.Besides, Khan also challenged the conclusion of the Sessions Court that because he is an influential person, he might tamper with the evidence in the case. There is no presumption in law that merely because a person is influential, there is likelihood of him tampering with the evidence, Khan contended.On October 26, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had made detailed arguments on behalf of Aryan Khan.Rohatgi had submitted that Khan cannot be held liable under the NDPS Act for charas recovered from the shoes of Arbaaz Merchant.Rohatgi submitted that no illegal substance was recovered from Khan and there was no evidence linking him to any conspiracy or illicit trafficking punishable under the NDPS Act."It was not in my control, what was found in Merchant’s shoe. Arbaaz is not my servant, he is not under my control, so there is no conspiracy," Rohatgi had submitted.Rohatgi had also said that Khan was not part of any conspiracy as alleged and the WhatsApp chats relied upon by NCB to allege conspiracy on Khan's part were from a much earlier period.The Whatsapp chats, they were of the time period of 2018. None of the chats are from the cruise. There is no case where those chats with “123” have anything to do with this saga. Those chats, we will have to see in trial, to be proved. The chats have nothing to do with the current scenario and therefore, to use general phrase like conspiracy is not right," he had stated.The NCB in its reply however, stated that Khan is an influential person and may tamper with witnesses and evidence if let out on bail. In this regard, the NCB in its reply also highlighted the affidavit of one of the witnesses in the case, Prabhakar Sail, to buttress its claim that the probe is being interfered with. Sail in his affidavit had raised allegations against NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede and the affidavit had been widely reported in the media. "Such a document has not been filed in any proceeding before any court despite the fact that the matter is sub-judice before Bombay High Court and Sessions Court. Curiously, the same has been clandestinely distributed and widely publicised in the media," the NCB submitted in its reply. .Khan was represented by Karanjawala & Co. and Desai Desai Carrimjee & Mulla.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan, in the cruise ship drug case in which Khan is the prime accused..The plea was allowed by single-judge Justice Nitin Sambre.The Court also granted bail to two other co-accused Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha."All applications are allowed," the Court ordered. The detailed order setting out conditions for bail will be pronounced tomorrow, the judge added..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi prayed for submission of cash surety for Aryan Khan, but the same was rejected by Justice Sambre. .Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, representing the NCB, told the High High Court today that the case against the accused is not for consumption but for 'conscious possession and plan to consume'.In this regard, the ASG highlighted Section 29 of the NDPS Act which deals with conspiracy."Section 29 does not say that the person has to be in possession. He made an attempt to deal with commercial quantity," the ASG said.In this regard, Singh highlighted the WhatsApp chats of Khan and said that the subsequent recovery of drugs from eight co-accused corroborated what was stated in WhatsApp chats."It cannot be a coincidence that so many people on the cruise, 8 were found with drugs and there was multiple varieties," the ASG said.Further, he also said that the total quantity of drugs recovered is 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act. The ASG pointed how as per WhatsApp chats they were going to the cruise for having a 'blast' and the Charas recovered from Arbaaz Merchant was meant for the consumption of both of them/"They are going inside to have a “blast”. The charas was meant for smoke during cruise journey. They were in possession though physically with Arbaaz. And it was for their consumption. it was for both of them. This is further elaborated in other records," he contended..The ASG also said that the rigours of Section 37 (on restrictions on grant of bail) kicks in because the NCB has invoked offences under Sections 28 (attempt to commit offence) and 29 (conspiracy) of NDPS Act..On the petitioner's contention that the arrest was illegal and charge of conspiracy was not present in arrest memo but was invoked later as an afterthought, the ASG said that the lawyers of the accused were made aware within four hours (after arrest) and any infirmity was rectified as soon as remand order was given. "It is not that they were not aware of Sections 28 and 29. In the remand copy four hours later these were added. The lawyers were aware. My contention is that there are three orders of remand which have not been challenged. They cannot come now and say that arrest was illegal," Singh said. They have still not challenged the remand orders, he added."My contention is he was found in possession. He was connected with drug peddlers. It was commercial quantity. Hence we invoked 28 and 29. It was only 4 hours (after arrest) and they were aware of the grounds," the ASG maintained.The WhatsApp chats also buttress the case against him, he said while also showing Section 65B certificate with respect to the same as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act. Rohatgi, representing Khan, then proceeded to make rejoinder submissions. "There was no conspiracy because there was no meeting of minds. There was no discussion that they will meet, that they will get the substance and smoke - that is conspiracy," he said."If there are people in a hotel in different rooms and they smoke are all people in hotel in conspiracy? There is no material for calling it a conspiracy in this case," he further said.He also maintained that the only person he knew was Arbaaz Merchant."I knew only Arbaaz, I did not know anyone else. It is true it is difficult to prove that there is common meeting of mind. but facts cannot be ignored. There has to be meeting of minds. how can there be conscious possession for 6 grams (the amount recovered from Merchant)," Rohatgi submitted..Khan was taken into custody by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on October 2, 2021 after the NCB raided a cruise ship en route to Goa from Mumbai.He was placed under arrest on October 3 and charged with offences under Section 8(c), 20(b), 27, 28, 29 and 35 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.He was remanded to NCB custody till October 4, which was extended till October 7.Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody after which he immediately moved for bail.Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate RM Nerlikar had rejected the bail application, holding that it was not maintainable as only the special court of sessions was entitled to hear the bail plea.Subsequently, Khan moved the special court under the NDPS Act seeking bail which came to be rejected on Wednesday, October 20 prompting the present appeal before the High Court..Khan in his bail plea, contended that NCB was misinterpreting his WhatsApp chats to implicate him in the case.Further, Khan submitted that he has no connection with any of the co-accused arrested in the case except two of them - Arbaaz Merchant and Aachit Kumar - who had invited him to the party.Besides, Khan also challenged the conclusion of the Sessions Court that because he is an influential person, he might tamper with the evidence in the case. There is no presumption in law that merely because a person is influential, there is likelihood of him tampering with the evidence, Khan contended.On October 26, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had made detailed arguments on behalf of Aryan Khan.Rohatgi had submitted that Khan cannot be held liable under the NDPS Act for charas recovered from the shoes of Arbaaz Merchant.Rohatgi submitted that no illegal substance was recovered from Khan and there was no evidence linking him to any conspiracy or illicit trafficking punishable under the NDPS Act."It was not in my control, what was found in Merchant’s shoe. Arbaaz is not my servant, he is not under my control, so there is no conspiracy," Rohatgi had submitted.Rohatgi had also said that Khan was not part of any conspiracy as alleged and the WhatsApp chats relied upon by NCB to allege conspiracy on Khan's part were from a much earlier period.The Whatsapp chats, they were of the time period of 2018. None of the chats are from the cruise. There is no case where those chats with “123” have anything to do with this saga. Those chats, we will have to see in trial, to be proved. The chats have nothing to do with the current scenario and therefore, to use general phrase like conspiracy is not right," he had stated.The NCB in its reply however, stated that Khan is an influential person and may tamper with witnesses and evidence if let out on bail. In this regard, the NCB in its reply also highlighted the affidavit of one of the witnesses in the case, Prabhakar Sail, to buttress its claim that the probe is being interfered with. Sail in his affidavit had raised allegations against NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede and the affidavit had been widely reported in the media. "Such a document has not been filed in any proceeding before any court despite the fact that the matter is sub-judice before Bombay High Court and Sessions Court. Curiously, the same has been clandestinely distributed and widely publicised in the media," the NCB submitted in its reply. .Khan was represented by Karanjawala & Co. and Desai Desai Carrimjee & Mulla.
