After a hearing marked by snippy comments, a lot of bickering and flying tempers, a Mumbai court on Friday rejected the bail application of Aryan Khan, the son of Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan, and two others in a case pertaining to an alleged seizure of narcotic drugs from a cruise ship off the Mumbai coast. “Applications rejected. Not maintainable,” said Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate R M Nerlikar while denying bail to the three accused. The judge dictated only the operative part of the order initially.
“Unless I complete the entire order, I won’t leave the court today,” said the judge. “Not appropriate to reserve the order at this point in time,” he said as the hearing drew well into the later half of the evening.
The order means that Aryan and the other accused will have to spend the weekend in the Arthur Road Jail lock-up in a quarantine cell as the Mumbai sessions court is not working given that it is the second Saturday of the month. Even if the holiday court is moved, relief is unlikely till Monday. “We will try our best to move the court tomorrow,” Adwait Tamhankar, who is representing co-accused Arbaz Merchant, told CNN-News18.
The NCB represented by the Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh primarily argued on the question of maintainability of the bail plea. The ASG said that the bail plea was maintainable only in front of the Sessions Court. “This court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the bail applications,” he said, even as the defence vehemently opposed it.
“If I raise an issue of maintainability, then that needs to be argued first. Then the question on merit arises,” he said.
“The court will decide what is to be argued first,” Satish Maneshinde, Aryan’s counsel, snapped.
“For the first time, someone is telling the court how to conduct a matter,” he said later.
The ASG snapped back saying he wasn’t dictating anything. “I am merely stating the position of law,” he said.
Even in the reply given by the NCB to Aryan Khan’s bail plea, the NCB wrote, “The bail plea will have to be heard by the sessions court. This court doesn’t have jurisdiction.”
“Recovery of contraband not the only relevant factor for bail, the NCB said in its reply to Aryan’s bail plea.
“Why is the Union of India so interested in a case where there has been no seizure?” asked Maneshinde during the arguments, which the ASG denied vehemently.
On at least two occasions, Maneshinde tried to interrupt the ASG, after which the court had to intervene to allow the ASG to continue arguments.
After the prosecution’s arguments, the defence counsels started putting forth their sides. Both sides cited several judgments to support their arguments.
Maneshinde presented several judgments on how the law dealt with those who had smaller quantities recovered from them. “Law is evolving. Youth do not foresee the link between actions today and their consequences tomorrow. The youth deserve the opportunity to get back their freedom,” he said.
“I thought NCB will be lenient. I am not claiming the bail as a matter of right. I exhausted it on the first day. I thought NCB takes a lenient view as there is no recovery. I thought they will let my custody go after the first day. Having not raised bail on the first day, is it a valid ground to say he can’t claim bail on right? I have been found with nothing. Not even 1 gm. So much is being made out of it,” Maneshinde argued.
Arguing on facts, he asserted that Aryan had no prior run-ins with the law. “I happen to be from Bollywood so I reached the cruise. I was asked if I had drugs. I denied. A search was conducted. Nothing was found. They perused my mobile. They thought they would get material to interrogate me. mobile has been sent for forensic examination. Data downloaded. My questioning happened on the first day. Nothing has happened since then. Even yesterday, when I was in JC, they were kind enough to not question me honouring the JC. Search and seizure can take place without my presence. Though accusation, no material.”
“Nothing could emerge because there was nothing. I am from a respectable family. I have parents here. Am not likely to abscond. I have an Indian passport. There is no question of tampering with any evidence.”
After the defence lawyers completed their arguments, the ASG responded. “Arguments have been made as if I am opposing bail. That isn’t my contention. This matter can’t be heard in this court, is all am saying. Everyone has the right to seek bail. I am not opposing that,” he said.
At this juncture, Satish Maneshinde, representing Aryan Khan, kept commenting on something. The ASG snapped at him. “Please stop this commentary. Let me argue,” he said.
A football conversation
The ASG referred to the WhatsApp chats between Aryan and Arbaz and claimed they were about drug dealings. “It is a football communication, but it speaks of quantities of drugs, referring to a football game. I wanted to avoid saying this in court. But can there be two separate proceedings? This is what is being investigated,” he said.
“The contents of the chat and the incident can’t be a coincidence. They went in the same car. It can’t be a coincidence that all these accused were found in the same place with drugs,” he further avered.
To this, the judge asked, “Can you disclose what was that specific info that your officers received? Whether you came to know of any assembly of these personas? Because that attracts section 29.” He gave the case diary for perusal.
Read all the Latest News , Breaking News and IPL 2022 Live Updates here.
Comments
0 comment