Aryan Khan's Arrest Is A Direct Infringement Of Constitutional Guarantees: Mukul Rohatgi Argues For Bail Before Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court is hearing the bail applications filed by Aryan Khan, Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha in the cruise ship drug case. Live Updates from hearing before Justice NW Sambre here. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi is appearing for Aryan Khan. Yesterday, he had stated that there was no occasion to arrest Aryan Khan as nothing was recovered from him and there is nothing...
The Bombay High Court is hearing the bail applications filed by Aryan Khan, Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha in the cruise ship drug case.
Live Updates from hearing before Justice NW Sambre here.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi is appearing for Aryan Khan. Yesterday, he had stated that there was no occasion to arrest Aryan Khan as nothing was recovered from him and there is nothing on record to show that he had consumed anything either.
Today, he argued that the Courts were misled by the Narcotics Control Bureau to believe that large quantities of contraband were recovered from the accused. He further submitted that the anti-drugs agency had proceeded in sheer violation of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Violation of Article 22
Rohatgi told the High Court that the arrest memo of accused did not give true and correct grounds for arrest, which is contrary to the requirement under Section 50 of CrPC which talks about Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.
"Article 22 of the Constitution is more important than Section 50 of CrPC. It states that no person should be held without being informed about the grounds of arrest and the person shall have the right to consult a lawyer of his choice."
He relied on the Madhu Limaye case to argue that "if there is constitutional infirmity, it cannot be cured by remand."
Remand application misleading
Rohatgi argued that the remand application filed by the NCB was misleading in a sense that it made one feel that the large quantities were recovered from Aryan Khan. He added,
"They have the phone but they don't tell us (in remand). We don't have access to the chats. They have chats, they have possession and yet they chose to mislead me by not telling me what has been recovered."
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for accused Arbaaz Merchant, also claimed that the first remand application did not talk about conspiracy and the Court, at the time of the first remand, was misled into believing that the accused were also charged under section 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
"This is a direct infringement of constitutional guarantees. We are all available to the agencies. Bail may be granted," Desai argued.
Reiterating that it was a clear case of no possession, no consumption and no recovery, Rohatgi had argued yesterday that the purported voluntary statement given by Khan to NCB under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Tofan Singh case.
Further, he denied the veracity of WhatsApp chats where he is purportedly discussing about procurement and supply of drugs with the other co-accused in the case.
On the allegation of 'conscious possession' of contraband which was recovered from Khan's friend Arbaaz Merchant, it was submitted, "What somebody else had in their Shoe is not my concern… Possession of somebody else cannot be my possession unless there is control and knowledge."
Read further arguments here.
Compiled by Akshita Saxena