Lessons from Aryan Khan Bail arguments by Mukul Rohatgi in Mumbai HC

Argument of ex-Attorney general of India Sh Mukul Rohatgi in Aryan Khan's case on 26th Oct 2021 starting at 4:19 PM and finishing at 5:38 PM.

Lessons:

Arguments are structured as

1. Introduction of the case/parties/why they are here. Went to trial court etc.

2. Case facts (No possession, no recovery, no medical test, no phone in panchnama when whatsapp is main evidence)

3. Objections (Arrested by non-police officer)

4. Law point - sections and applicability

5. Citations - read relevant paras etc.


Day 1 Transcript from livelaw:

26 Oct 2021 4:10 PM Serial number 54 now called out.

Commotion outside as certain lawyers from Aryan Khan's team were not allowed inside. Adv Satish Maneshinde goes outside to ensure the juniors are allowed inside.


26 Oct 2021 4:19 PM 

Aryan Khan matter taken. 

Sr Adv MukulRohatgi : I beg to appear in the first of these matters. 

ASG tenders reply to the bail application.

Mukul Rohatgi- I am sorry for this commotion. May I proceed? I appear for A1. He is 23 years of age. Did his undergraduate in Calafornia and returned in March 2020

The entire saga begins from Oct 2. A1 was not a customer, he was invited as a special guest. And invited by a man called Prateek Gaba, acting as an event manager

Gaba knew Khan and Merchant. Based to the advertisement, they arrived on the afternoon of October 2 at the cruise terminal in Mumbai.

NCB was present in some strength at the terminal. They had some information and we're there to apprehend. My client and Arbaaz we're apprehended before they could board the ship.

Nothing was recovered from my client(Aryan Khan) and they have nothing to show he consumed anything either. Rohatgi - There was no occasion to arrest my client, short and simple.

He was arrested on October 3. His statement was recorded. 

Court - On third? 

Rohatgi- Yes

Rohatgi highlights there was no recovery, no consumption or no medical test done as far as Aryan Khan is concerned.

We have raised the question in several petitions that even though these officers are not police officers...they exercise police powers. So they say they have the power to arrest. But otherwise say they are not police officers.

Rohatgi refers to last year's Supreme Court judgment in "Tofan Singh" case which held that NDPS officers are police officers and confessions given to them are inadmissible in evidence.

Rohatgi- Since there is no recovery or consumption, I am wrongly arrested. Rohatgi narrates how the bail application travelled to the High Court.

Rohatgi : What is put against me is that since I came with Arbaaz and apparently had knowledge of the contraband with him, I have conscious possession. Conscious possession is what is under my control and knowledge. If I am driving the car and something is in the car, there could be conscious possession.

My case is that there is no conscious possession at all. What somebody else had in their Shoe is not my concern. That cannot be my "conscious possession".

Rohatgi cites a judgment. "In an old case involving a minister he was booked for harbouring a terrorist as a servant brought him into the house. SC said that can't be the case".

Rohatgi says its not as if a party was going on. Why my client is targeted? 

Rohatgi- Many people having larger and commercial amounts were also arrested.

Rohatgi says that even if conscious possession is taken, the maximum he can charged with is 1 year, for the 6grams.

Rohatgi : So I am not charged under 27A but they are charging me with conspiracy.

It is a general, amorphous vague kind of a situation to indirectly bring 27A of the NDCP Act and then the bar under section 37 of NDPS.

The trial judge has cited, conscious possession, bar under 37 and conspiracy to deny bail.


Rohatgi - WhatsApp chats recovered from my phone. They are not on record but  cited. None of those chats relate to the cruise party.

Rohatgi - None of those chats have anything to do with the onset of this saga or...conspiracy if you want to call it that. The chats will have to be tested at the time of trial. But to use a general phrase of conspiracy, there is nothing.


26 Oct 2021 4:44 PM Rohatgi- Now if there are a group of friends who plan to smoke up there is a meeting of minds. But the plan here was aborted. They were arrested before. The penalty is of consumption. Possession of somebody else cannot be my possession unless there is control and knowledge. Rohatgi reading the arrest memo - I have no case either of consumption or of sale or purchase. I don't accuse any officer of NCB. I am not concerned or connected with panch witness no. 1 or 2. (Prabhakar Sail or KP Gosavi).

The Director of NCB yesterday said the affidavit was a result of some political leader. But today the unsavoury controversy is rebounding on me, they are putting it on me. I don't want to sully my case by siding with either the political personality or the panchas. Because I am not connected to anyone.

I have a great case.

In this remand there is no seizure of the mobile phone. Mobile seizure is not even in the panchnama. Court asks then what is the basis for the WhatsApp Chats. 

Rohatgi- The Whatsapp Chats have nothing to do with the cruise case. They are all chats with people from before.

Rohatgi- I went there, I did not have anything but I was arrested.

Rohatgi says that Aryan Khan had gone there with Arbaaz. That's all. 'They are some boys..the law provides that for small quantities the maximum punishment is one year. And there is also immunity from prosecution after they go to a rehabilitation centre' - Rohatgi.

Rohatgi reading section 20b (ii) of NDPS Act to say that the legislative intent is clear. Maximum is 1 year and minimum is nothing.

Rohatgi says that there is nothing against Aryan Khan. Section 27A is financing any activities of cultivation of coca plant or opium or indulging in production. Aryan is not charged with this but Rohatgi says it still won't apply.

Rohatgi : I have not financed anyone for drug trafficking.

Rohatgi : If you apply the offences of conspiracy and abetment to Section 8(c), 20(b) and 27, then only the punishment is nothing more than 1 year.

Rohatgi : The legislative intent is that if you consume or caught with possession of small quantity and if you go in for rehabilitation there is immunity from prosecution.

Rohatgi : In US and some parts of the world, cannabis is legal.

Rohatgi refers to a chat prepared showing the arrests and quantity recovered. Says that maximum is Aryan Khan can be connected to Arbaaz Merchant and A17(Aachit Kumar) as per the prosecution.

Rohatgi : But Aachit was not on the cruise, he was arrested from his home...There is no meeting of minds between the accused

Court - Even in the chart, there is some connection to A17. Rohatgi repeats what he said earlier. 

Desai (Aryan's Advocate in sessions court) - Can I explain A17? He is also a young college kid. He was the person with whom A1(Aryan) was playing poker. And the chats were before 12- 14 months and that is being cited in the WhatsApp. Today lots of gaming is happening online. During the lockdown lots of children were playing. It is also being considered by courts. 

Rohatgi- So there is no material that my client was financing illicit traffic.

Rohatgi : He mentioned gaming. My lords remember rummy? SC has said it is a game of skill.

Amit Desai submits that the Whatsapp Chats between Aryan Khan and Aachit were about online poker. "There was nothing beyond communication about Poker"

Rohatgi : At the end of the day the other side will rely on chats which I don't have. But I want to say they are unconnected events.

Rohatgi citing certain judgments : I have a better case than all these cases I am citing because there is no recovery from me.

Rohatgi now cites the judgement of Supreme Court Ragini Dwivedi vs State of Karnataka.

Rohatgi refers to para 7 of the Ragini Dwivedi judgment in which the SC granted bail. No drugs were found and the applicant was arrested on a conspiracy charge, he says.

Rohatgi says that the Supreme Court held in Ragini Dwivedi's case that the bar for bail under 37 of NDPS Acr would not apply. 

Rohatgi - Ragini's case the SC held that at best it was a case of consumption.

Rohatgi is now referring to Bombay High Court's judgement in Prajesh Vaghani vs State of Maha on conscious possession.

Rohatgi- There is no question of conscious possession. Arbaaz is not my servant, he is not in my control. I have no control over what is found in Arbaaz's shoe. 

26 Oct 2021 5:33 PM Rohtagi - This case has attracted public and media gaze because of his parents. Unsavory controversy between political personalities and NCB cannot rub off on me.

Rohatgi says he denies all allegations in the NCB's reply. "I deny everything. I am not making allegations against any officer or anybody", he says

Rohatgi : I filed a rejoinder saying that I am not making any allegations against the officers or panchas & I have no connection with them.


26 Oct 2021 5:38 PM

Rohatgi concludes his arguments saying "I respectfully submit that this case is for bail".


An advocate says he has filed an intervention to object the bail. He objects to the bail applications being taken up on priority. 

Adv Subhash Jha : No denial of the fact that people are languishing in jail. I am appear for a public servant.

Rohatgi : I object to the intervention. 

Justice Sambre : Mr Jha, you appear in my court, everyday. I do not rise without completing my board. Whosoever comes to court gets a hearing.


26 Oct 2021 5:45 PM

Adv Amrish Sharma also files an intervention. Says it is on similar grounds of preference given to this matter. Justice Sambre says says whoever has any other urgent matters can mention them. Judge says he sits till even 7 PM being sensitive to the concerns of the bar. Justice Sambre now calls other remaining matters. Calls item 59.

Day 2 Transcripts from bar n bench for Adv Amit Desai submissions that went on for 2 hrs.

3:33 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh has come to Court. He is accompanied with Advocate Shreeram Shirsat and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Advait Sethna.

3:40 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi with Advocate Satish Maneshinde have also arrived.

3:51 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Aryan Khan case begins.

3:51 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Senior Advocate Amit Desai starts arguing for Arbaaz Merchant.

3:52 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Amit Desai: Yesterday I was on the incident of arrest, and I was reading the arrest memo.

3:55 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Your Lordships will notice that in the afternoon October 3, all these three people have been arrested for identical offences without Section 27A and 29 and they were arrested only for 20(b) and 27.

3:55 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: What it means is on the assessment of the material, the mobile phone and all, the reason I believe is that they had come there only for consumption.

3:56 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Section 27 and 20(b) was for consumption that is what is there in the arrest memo.

If there was no conspiracy on assessment then the punishment was for a year and there was interse no conspiracy.

3:57 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: The person who arrested them treated them unconnected with each other and treated individually and wanted to go to the cruise and consume.

4:00 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: If these are three individuals doing individual act, then what should have been the action punishable under 14(1)(a).

The Cr.P.C. provides for offences of this type. Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C...

4:01 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai reads out Arnesh Kumar judgment.

The scope of S. 41A was considered at great length.

And yesterday what was sought to be pointed out is that the arrest was illegal.

Para 5 of Arnesh Kumar is important.

4:04 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Amit Desai: Law is - bail is the rule and jail is exception, now it is arrest is the rule and bail is exception.


4:08 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai is now reading Section 51 of the Cr.P.C. and submits Baldev Singh judgment.

4:08 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Amit Desai is now reading Andhra Pradesh judgement in which the Court was considering whether 41A applies to NDPS Act.

Section 41A applies to NDPS Act which are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years.

4:11 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: After due application of mind, 3 people were arrested under 20(b) and 27, but what was the need to arrest them?

There was no conspiracy.

So what was the need.


4:11 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: As per Arnesh judgment, if there is violation of 41A they must be released.

The second part now. What was the next event? 2 PM, they were arrested and 7 PM, they were produced.

4:11 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: There is nobody arrested or produced before the Court as of now. But the remand application does not talk of conspiracy, later it says 8 people conspired and then the reply today says conspiracy of 20 people.

4:13 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: The learned magistrate remanded them to custody for investigation and that continued till October 7.

Till today, there is no arrest for conspiracy and conspiracy is a separate offence.

4:14 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: This is the second event and we are now in custody for 22 days because of these issues which have come up for consideration and now shows panchnama.

4:17 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: The panchnama demolishes the case of conspiracy.

They thought it was a group, but what happened?

4:19 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: This is a case of personal consumption.


4:20 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: It says “except personal consumption”. And there was no allegation of use in arrest memo.

Desai continues reading panchnama.

4:22 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: In this group, Vikrant and Ishmeet, I am not making submissions against them, but they were supposedly in conspiracy. Then they came across two more people who was Arbaaz and Aryan.

4:23 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: 6 gms of charas are supposed to be recovered from my shoes. I supposedly confessed when I was asked. I am keeping aside for retraction. I had also immediately applied for CCTV footage which the terminal has. No orders are passed in that.

4:26 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: This confession which was added in the panchnama is admissible.

I am only on the consumption.

Unlike others whose statements are on purchase and sale, mine is only on consumption.

4:27 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Then Gomit Chopra is mentioned in the panchnama from whom cash was found.

Also, the lady who is arrested with them, Dhamecha is not mentioned in this panchnama.

And whatever confession is there is that both were to consume.

4:28 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Arbaaz found with consumption, but they decided to invoke joint consumption.

Panchnama resulted in aborting of conspiracy.

4:28 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: There are 4 ingredients to a crime. Intention is the highest crime. If the party was organized, and the organizers were to supply, then conspiracy applies.

4:29 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: But if there is intention to consume then that also should not apply as no medical test is done.


4:29 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Section 20(b) is a theory of possession and joint possession.

Consumption is a verb that has not happened.

4:30 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: We saw in the morning in Sessions Court.. two young children and experimenting.. and these two people were from Orissa and their reply was identical but then we read today they have been granted bail.

4:33 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: These are boys who were on the vessel, the vessel left, they enjoyed and then they came back, and then they were picked up. And they have been granted bail.

4:33 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: That order is not binding on this court, and I am not on parity and if not parity, I am on liberty.

4:34 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court: Who accompanied them?

Sr. Adv. Desai: They were two independent people. That is what I am saying. The two of us (Arbaz and Aryan) were connected..

4:34 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai shows the chart which Sr. Adv. Rohatgi had submitted yesterday: There are three unconnected persons coming for the same purpose that is not conspiracy.

4:35 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Even if there is concurrence in the intention of the accused, what the prosecution must prove is that there was positive intention to commit an act with common intention.

4:38 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai Reads a Bombay High Court judgment of 2001- Abdul Rehman Fakir v state of Maharashtra.

4:40 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai is reading State v. Nalini. Only portion pertaining to conspiracy.

What are the facts of this case?

Please go back to remand application.

4:42 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court: How much time will you take?

Sr. Adv. Desai: 30 more minutes..

Court: Then I will take it tomorrow, because I have remaining board.

4:43 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Desai: I will try to finish in a few minutes. Only factual.

What they found from me was 6 gms. But they said 21 gms of charas.

4:44 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: There is no connection whatsoever between the others. There are no WhatsApp chats.

4:45 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: So far as WhatsApp chats are concerned, it is abundantly clear that there are no WhatsApp chats to support the conspiracy theory.

4:45 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: As a part of this case, what was argued was WhatsApp chats which was 3 months before, one month before etc.

4:47 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court: Is it that the 65B certificate (electronic evidence must be favoured) is done away in UK?

Sr. Adv. Desai: UK has gone back to the old ways. We have adopted and continued.

4:48 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Without a 65B, it is not admissible now anymore. In an NDPS matter it was held that, WhatsApp chats were inadmissible.

4:50 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: There is no seizure of mobile phone. Remand application says mobile phone seized.

The procedure is that whenever there is seizure, there is a memo that has to ensure the veracity of the seizure so that there is no scope of tampering.

4:51 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: There is no seizure memo in relation to the phones.

And they argued that it was voluntarily handed over.

But with personal devices, it is important to have a memo for the veracity.

4:51 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court: They must have drawn..

Sr. Adv. Desai: No we have asked for it. And this argument has been advanced.

In Punjab & Haryana High Court, they have held that WhatsApp is inadmissible. Justice Dangre has held that.

4:52 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Based on this there have been speculation of drug trafficking, it is absurd.

The device is not with us, there is no panchnama.

Today it is vague.

4:53 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Nobody stops investigation if bail is given. But, what is the need for custody when Punishment is one year?

4:54 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: I am seeking bail in that matter where punishment is only one year and there are circumstances to show that there is no conspiracy.

4:56 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi points out from arrest memo: The arrest memo refers to different items. The law requires that you must give true and correct grounds for arrest.

4:57 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Rohatgi: The power to arrest takes you back to section 50 of Cr.P.C.

Persons should be informed of arrest and right of bail.

What is important is Article 22 of the Constitution. That article flows from Article 21 (Right to life).

4:57 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Rohatgi submits the judgment of Madhu Limaye of Supreme Court.

5:00 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Rohatgi: If there is constitutional infirmity then it cannot be cured by remand.

5:01 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Rohatgi: WhatsApp chats I am handicapped, I do not have them.

The point is they have chats, they have possession and yet they choose to mislead me by not telling me what has been recovered..

5:04 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Rohatgi: Reading this remand, anybody will feel that seizure made has to do with me or Arbaaz. Though there is nothing recovered against you (Aryan), you have been alleged with Section A, B C.

5:06 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: There are two parts to it - no conspiracy and then incriminating me with the recovery of someone else.

This is a draconian Act and there is a duty to apply mind.

5:08 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: What Your Lordships have been made to look at are statements which are violative of Article 14 (Equality), 19 (Free speech) and 21 (Right to life).

5:09 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Bail should be granted and we will all be available for the investigation as and when called.

Desai concludes his submissions.

5:09 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh begins submissions for Munmun Dhamecha.

5:11 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Khan: I am a model by profession. I was invited. The moment I entered within 2-3 minutes, I was intercepted. Interestingly, there were two people in the room. Please see panchnama.


5:12 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Khan Deshmukh: I am relying on their own case. In the present case there is Soumya Singh and Baldev, and they were not arrested.

5:14 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: During the search which was conducted, nothing was found, but then they had recovered rolling papers from Soumya Singh.

So there is nothing against me, their case is against Soumya.

5:15 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: Personal search was conducted, nothing was found against her (Munmun).

Case against me is copy paste from the other case.

5:17 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: My case if they are arrested people as suspects, then all 1,300 people should have been arrested.

I am not from Madhya Pradesh. I have no contacts with anyone. I was invited.

Through me they have not arrested anyone.

5:17 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court: Soumya Singh was your companion? From her bag something was found.. she is not accused..

Adv Deshmukh: I don’t even know her.

5:19 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh submits a compilation of the lower court orders.

The Sessions Court order is 90% silent on me.

5:19 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: The allegations are against other accused.

5:20 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh is reading out the Sessions court order: I am not connected in the present case. There is nothing found on me. If they conduct a medical test, they will find nothing against me.


5:23 pm, 27 Oct 2021
She never consumed drugs: Munmun Dhamecha.

There is a lacuna in section 29 which needs to be filled in by this court.

Section 29 does not deal with small, intermediate or large quantity. The case against majority is of small.

5:24 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: They have smartly involved small with intermediate quantity people in one case and because of this, the magistrate court could not intervene.

5:27 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: I am relying on the judgment of Kerala HC, where bail was granted in small quantities.

I am saying that there is no connection with anyone.

But in the NCB reply, they are saying that I am connected to Ishmeet Singh.

5:28 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Adv Deshmukh: And that is through WhatsApp chats. And I will request the NCB to bring the WhatsApp chats on record.

Deshmukh concludes his submissions.

5:29 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court tells ASG to continue tomorrow.

5:29 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Court: How long will you take?

ASG: My friend said he will take 45 mins, so I would have taken 30 mins. But he has taken 2 hours, so I will take some time.

5:30 pm, 27 Oct 2021
ASG: I will try to finish within an hour.

Court: If you finish in the hour, then we will finish tomorrow.

5:30 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Aryan Khan case adjourned to TOMORROW.

5:32 pm, 27 Oct 2021
Sr. Adv. Desai: Tomorrow at 2.30?

Court: After 2.30. (Everyone laughs)

Day 3 of hearing:

ASG Anil Singh argues that while no recovery was made from Aryan Khan, he may still be booked under section 8c under the NDPS, for “conscious possession”.

“The scope of section 8(c) is very wide. Therefore there may be a case that the person has not consumed the drug but is found in possession, 8(c) will apply,” he said, as per LiveLaw.  

“We have argued conscious possession in the sessions court as well. That if two people are travelling together, and the first person is knows the drug is with the other and it is for their consumption...Though the person may not be in actual physical possession, he may be in "conscious possession," he added.

ASG Singh, while referring to a Supreme Court judgement for an NDPS case says that “custody is the rule, bail is the exception".

Court points out that the judgements being cited are under 438 of CrPC(anticipatory bail)

Former Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi, makes rejoinder statements on behalf of Aryan Khan. He also said there is no material to allege conspiracy.

“Their case is if it is not a coincidence, but a conspiracy.  There has to be meeting of minds. Say a telephone call between all 8.  So apart from Arbaaz, none of these chaps have anything to do with me,” he said as per LiveLaw.

“I can understand if even all ten were friends. Apart from the people mentioned in the chart, there were two other people one is Manav and Gaba(who invited me). They were not arrested,” Rohatgi added.  

Court grants bail.

Summary of arguments by Mukul Rohatgi:
1. ‘Neither possession nor consumption was proven’ 
  • “Out of the twin conditions for bail, Section 37 does not apply because 27A has no application. Section 64A has immunity from prosecution if you are prosecuted under Sec 27 and you go to rehab." Mukul further questioned Aryan’s time in jail for the last 20 days mentioning that neither possession nor consumption was proven.
  • “I am arguing a case that is actually not there against me. My case is not of possession or consumption. In the US and some parts of the world, cannabis is legal. With this compendium of facts, what I am saying is that there is no case. There is no consumption, no possession... Why this boy has been sent 20 days in jail?" he said. 
2. ‘No complaint against NCB or Sameer Wankhede’ 

  • The NCB and Wankhede on Monday had said the extortion allegations were part of vendetta by a political leader whose son-in-law had been arrested by the NCB in the past. In its reply, NCB stated that bail should be rejected to Aryan Khan on those grounds, alone.
  • "Aryan has no complaints whatsoever against any officer of the NCB, including its zonal director Sameer Wankhede. Aryan is not concerned with these unsavoury controversies. He completely denies any relation to this," senior counsel Rohatgi told the court. "But today, the NCB is putting this on Aryan Khan and saying he is tampering with witnesses. This is affecting my client's case," Rohatgi argued. 
3. ‘WhatsApp chats between Aryan Khan and another accused in the case are about Online Poker and not drugs!’ 

Aryan Khan’s legal counsel stated that the conversation between Aryan Khan and Achit Kumar, another accused person who was arrested by the NCB later, was not about drugs, but about online poker. “There is some conversation about some winnings that is now being shown as a transaction,” Desai stated. Adding further, Rohatgi said, “Financing is a very defined use of a phrase. But here there is no financing, even if there are some chats, it is more than a year old. There was an old case of rummy. So, the Supreme Court has said it is a game of skill. Even horse racing is considered a game of skill, as one has to study the horses”.  

4. ‘Treat him as victim and not as accused’ 

Mukul Rohatgi, the legal counsel for Aryan Khan contended that the "legislative intent" behind the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, under which Aryan Khan and others, were arrested was reformation in cases involving small quantities of drugs. The Act intends that young persons be treated as victims and not as accused, he added.

Aryan Khan is a "young boy with no prior antecedents," said.

"Section 64A of the Act provides immunity to those persons who have been accused of possessing small quantities. If these persons are agreeable to be sent to rehab then that should be allowed. Aryan's case is not even of possession or consumption," he said, adding he cannot be held responsible for some other person's alleged possession of drugs.  

5. ‘Case being blown out of propotion’

Rohatgi argued that the 23-year-old has been wrongly arrested and kept in jail for over 20 days said.

The case was being blown out of proportions by some people who have vested interests and the media was paying attention to it because of some unsavoury controversies, otherwise it was a simple case, he added.

"There is no evidence of consumption, no recovery of drugs and absolutely no evidence to show his participation in this so-called conspiracy and abetment as alleged by the NCB," Rohatgi said.

One of the bail condition was to regularly visit police station every friday. Aryan khan did that for 6 weeks before approaching high court for removing the need to visit PS as condition for bail. These 10 points were put as argument:

  1. He assiduously and scrupulously complied with all bail conditions mentioned.
  2. He visited the NCB office every Friday as was directed by the High Court in the order stating conditions. He visited the office on November 5, 12, 19, 26 and December 3 and 10, 2021.
  3. He responded to the summons of the Special Investigation Team, NCB New Delhi by visiting the Kharghar office of the NCB Mumbai zonal unit.
  4. No further statement was recorded since November 12 after the case was taken over by the Special Investigation Team, NCB New Delhi.
  5. There is no likelihood for the Mumbai office to interrogate him and as a consequence, no point for his attendance to their office every Friday.
  6. He has been followed by a large number of media personnel, extensively photographed and questioned while visiting the NCB office.
  7. In order to maintain a law and order situation, a large number of police officials are deployed. However, if the bail condition is relaxed then, that can be dispensed with.
  8. Grounds for parity with co-accused Manish Rajgadiya whose weekly presence was dispensed with.
  9. He will appear as and when summoned.
  10. He is a student from a reputed family and wants to lead an honourable and dignified life.

Ref links: 

  1. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/aryan-khan-bail-hearing-mukul-rohatgi-to-argue-live-updates-from-bombay-high-court [Day 1]
  2. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/aryan-khan-arbaaz-merchant-munmun-dhamecha-bombay-high-court-bail-hearing-live-updates-184316?infinitescroll=1 [Day 1]
  3. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/aryan-khan-case-live-updates-from-bail-hearing-in-bombay-high-court-arbaaz-merchant-munmun-dhamecha-184422 [Day 2]
  4. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/aryan-khan-bail-hearing-live-updates-bombay-high-court [Day 2]
  5. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/entertainment-news-bombay-hc-to-listen-to-aryan-khans-bail-petition-today-five-new-arguments-by-mukhul-rohatgi/398855
  6. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/entertainment-news-will-aryan-khan-get-bail-today-all-thats-happened-so-far/398757
  7. https://www.news18.com/news/india/aryan-khan-drugs-case-srks-son-sought-exemption-from-appearance-before-ncb-on-these-10-grounds-4543178.html
Todo:
1. What in panchnama: https://www.mondaq.com/india/civil-law/730278/different-types-of-panchanama-in-law
Understand CRPC 100 etc. that defines the search procedures.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Chargesheet Vs final report / A, B, C Summary report

Judgment Analysis : Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan (with translation in Punjabi)

Ad-interim vs interim orders (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)