Read Time: 08 minutes

Aryan Khan has approached Bombay High Court challenging Mumbai court order denying bail to Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan's son Aryan Khan, Munmun Dhamecha and Arbaaz Merchant in the Cordelia Cruise drugs case registered against them and others by the Narcotics Control Bureau.

Earlier today, the Additional Sessions Judge VV Patil had refused to grant bail to Aryan, Munmun and Arbaaz.

Khan was arrested on October 3 after which he was remanded to NCB custody till October 7. Thereafter he was sent to judicial custody, with his bail being rejected by the Magistrate.

Earlier, the Magistrate Court had rejected an application by the Narcotics Control Bureau seeking further custody of Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan, actor Arbaaz Merchant, model Munmun Dhamecha and others in the Cordelia Cruise Drugs case.

Background: 

 

Senior Advocates Amit Desai and Satish Maneshinde had appeared on behalf of Khan while ASG Anil Singh and SPP Advait Sethna were present on behalf of NCB.

Desai took the court through the panchnama while timelining the whole incident in brief. He had also added that the contraband was recovered form Arbaaz Merchant and no recovery was made from the person of Aryan Khan.

"When it comes to secret information of use, sale and consumption, it stands to reason that you must be in possession to use, sale and consume....Whatever may be the information, for Aryan Khan, that information was wrong..", Desai had said.

The court was further told that no possession or admission of consumption was obtained from the person of Khan. 

Desai had added that the panchnama was also silent on Munmun Dhamecha's role.

"I don't know what's recovered from Munmun Dhamecha, as the panchnama is silent on her", he had submitted.

"Ultimately, nothing was recovered from Aryan Khan. He had no cash, so he couldn't purchase. He had no substance so he couldn't sell or consume", Desai informed ASJ Patil. The court was further told,

"When they take legal action and talk about keeping people in custody, it is for the court to understand and decide. Yes, they are doing a good job in Mumbai, arresting peddlers. But that doesn't give them the right to hold people."

Referring to NCB's reply which mentions illicit international drug trafficking, Desai submitted that this was a serious term being dumped on his client. He then said,

"I have no doubt that my friends know what illicit trafficking is in NDPS act. It's a term of law, not an ad-hoc term. It's defined in Section 2(8)(b). It's important to see how we can throw about anything. NCB should be cautious not to throw around such terms."

Desai ended his submissions while submitting that his client was not a peddler but a young kid.

"Let us not penalise them on the law of bail. Let us not make it worse....." he said.

Advocate Taraq Sayed also made submissions on behalf of Arbaaz Merchant.

Advocate Ali Kashif appearing for Munmun Dhamecha argued that she did not even know the other two accused.

"The reply filed by NCB is all about accused 1 and 2. Since the time of my arrest, I'm the one struggling the most. I have no connection with absolutely any other accused/arrested persons", Kashif told the Court.

ASG Singh had submitted that a reading of the voluntary statement recorded, the panchnama, the Whatsapp chats, if they were seen minutely, would show that the entire crime needs to be investigated further and that release of accused will hamper investigation.

He further argued that the contraband found with Merchant was for 'their' consumption - both of their consumption. Both of them were aware of the contraband on Arbaaz's possession, Singh stated.

Further relying on Whatsapp chats, Singh had said that the chats between the applicant and the foreign national referred to hard drug and quantity was commercial, and not for personal consumption.