ARYAN KHAN BAIL REJECTED BY SPECIAL JUDGE, MUMBAI

The Court of the Special Judge for #NDPS. Cases at Greater #Mumbai in the matter of Aryan Shah Rukh Khan versus the Union of India through N.C.B. (NCB/MZU/CR-94/2021) vide its Common Order dated 20-10-2021 #rejected the #Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by #AryanShahRukhKhan, #ArbaazAMerchant and Ms. #MunmunAmitKumarDhamecha.

Recently, in the matter of Cruise Ship Drug Case, Aryan Khan, Arbaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha (Accused) were arrested on 03.10.2021 by Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (#NCB) for their involvement in consumption, sale, purchase and attempt to commit offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b), 27, 28, 29 and 35 of the Narcotics #Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act, 1985’) in C. R. No. 94/2021.

Bail Applications were filed by the Accused in C.R. No. 94/2021 before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai (‘Metropolitan Magistrate’). The Metropolitan Magistrate, vide its Order dated 08-10-2021 rejected the Bail Applications as not maintainable in view of the Section 36A of the NDPS Act, 1985 which provides for offences triable by Special Courts. Read more at: https://theindianlawyer.in/bail-under-narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-to-be-granted-by-the-court-of-sessions/

Consequently, the Accused filed Bail Applications before the Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases at Greater Mumbai, on 09-10-2021, which was titled as Aryan Shah Rukh Khan (the ‘Applicant’) versus the Union of India through N.C.B. (the ‘Respondent’).

The first ground of Bail sought by the Applicant is absence of recovery from him. It was further contended that there is no nexus between the Applicant and with the other Accused with recovery of contraband as the Applicant did not having knowledge about the contraband. Moreover, it was argued that the recovery of contraband from other Accused cannot be said to be recovery from “conscious possession” of the Applicant.

However, the Court upon perusal of papers observed that the Applicant and other Accused were friends since a long time as per the voluntary statements of the Accused and it was disclosed that they possessed the said substance for their personal consumption and for enjoyment. The Court held that therefore, all these things go to show that Applicant was having knowledge of the contraband that was concealed by the other Accused. The Court said that it can be construed that it was in “conscious possession” of the Accused.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the said contraband recovered from the other Accused was not for sale, purchase or for any other purpose, therefore the rigors of Section 37 (Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable) of the NDPS Act, 1985 would not apply and there is no bar to grant bail. It was further submitted that though Prosecution invoked Section 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985, there is nothing to show nexus of the Applicant with other Accused. In this regard, the Court perused the WhatsApp Chats of the Applicant and observed that it reveals chats about drugs with unknown persons regarding bulk quantity and hard drugs. The Court therefore denied to accept the contentions raised by the Applicant.

The Court while rejecting the Bail Application of the Accused observed and gave the following reasons:

1) The jurisdiction to grant bail is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 which can be granted in a case when there are reasonable grounds that Accused is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

2) While deciding bail application, apart from the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the antecedents of the applicant, possibility of tampering with evidence and likelihood of commission of offence if released on bail are the relevant factors that needs to be taken into consideration.

3) That there is incriminating material in the form of Whatsapp chat etc., which show the nexus of the Applicants with suppliers and peddlers.

4) The Court said that the WhatsApp Chat of the Applicant shows that he was dealing in illicit drug activities of narcotic substances on regular basis, therefore it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit similar offence while on bail.

5) The raid was conducted in pursuance of the specific information that rave party has been organized on the Cruise and Accused persons are arriving with contraband. The Court also said that during the interrogation the Accused disclosed names of persons who supplied contraband to them. Therefore, the Court considered all these facts, as prima-facie relevant to show that Accused acted in conspiracy with each other. In this view, the Court observed that Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case.

In view of the above, the Court of Special Judge, Greater Mumbai held that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the Accused considering their regular involvement in commission of a serious offence. Section 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case in view of the material relied upon and therefore Section 37 (Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable) of the NDPS Act, 1985 will apply.

 

Lakshmi Vishwakarma

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Edited By

Sushila Ram

Chief Consultant and Co-Founder

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services