Mumbai: Bombay High Court, in its logical order after the grant of Bail In the high-profile Mumbai cruise drugs The case October 28, said: “Merely because the applicants were traveling on cruise, this in itself cannot be said to be a satisfactory ground for invoking the provisions of section 29 (conspiracy) against the applicants – Aryan KhanArbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha,
The court said that “nothing objectionable” was found in the chats retrieved from Aryan’s phone. Justice Nitin Sambre Said “After going through” whatsapp chat Removed from the phone (of Aryan Khan), nothing objectionable can be seen to suggest that – he and Arbaaz – or the other accused persons with the three applicants have consensual and conspired to commit the offense under consideration Is.”
“No objectionable substance was found with Aryan Khan, it is not disputed,” the high court said in the 14-page order. It also stated that “the quantity of drugs confiscated from the possession of (Arbaaz and Munmun), if independently considered, is a small quantity, not a disputed fact.”
NS NCB On October 3, the three were arrested after raids on October 2 at International cruise Terminal on tip-off about an alleged party on a cruise that was about to depart from Mumbai to Goa.
The NCB’s case was that it had recovered 6 grams of charas from Arbaaz and 5 grams of hash from Munmun and arrested eight people on that day and arrested all the 20 accused so far in the case, one with commercial quantity . The agency, through Additional Solicitor Anil Singh, relied on the provisions of section 29 (offence of conspiracy) under the NDPS Act to claim that “cumulatively, drugs in commercial quantities were confiscated” from those accused in the case and It was a case of larger conspiracy and hence bail can be denied.
The HC needs to be “sensitive to the fact that there should be presence of basic material as evidence so as to prove the case of conspiracy against the applicants.”
“There is an absence on their record of such meeting of mind with other accused, who were named in the offence. The case of the prosecution that the applicants have admitted to the offense is also an offense under the NDPS Act. Here Even if it is commended, the maximum punishment prescribed for such offense is not more than one year. The applicants have already faced imprisonment for about 25 days,” Justice Sambre said, he added that he “was not even subjected to medical examination to determine whether he had consumed drugs at the relevant time”.
Aryan’s advice Mukul Rohatgi, Satish Maneshinde and Arbaaz’s counsel Amit Desai and Tarak Syed had argued that there should be a first meeting of minds before taking action for the offense of conspiracy. The High Court held that before mentioning any act of conspiracy, there must be a positive evidence of such an agreement as to an unlawful act or an unlawful act done in an unlawful manner and it must be first and foremost of mind. meeting should be
“There is hardly any positive evidence to convince this court that all the accused agreed to commit the unlawful act with common intention,” the order said. It said, “Rather, the investigation conducted till this date shows that (Aryan and Arbaaz) were traveling independent of (Munmun) and no meeting of Mann took place.”
In its argument released on Saturday, the High Court said “there is no material on record to infer that the applicants have conspired to commit a drug offence”, so it is difficult to infer at this stage whether they are in commercial quantities. are involved in the crime. , for bail. Aryan was released on October 30, while two others were later released from jail.
Justice Sambre clarified a position in the law and held that the “confessional statement” recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act can only be considered for the purpose of investigation and “to infer cannot be used as a tool that the applicants have committed an offense under the Act as alleged against them”.
The High Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Toofan Singh which held that NCB officers are also police officers and the confessional statements recorded by them were not admissible evidence and rejected the NCB’s claims that Khan and two others had His involvement was “admitted”. The High Court said, “Once the confessional statement of the applicants/accused cannot compel them to commit the offense in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh, claimed by the Respondent (NCB) that the accused persons admitted that their involvement in the offense deserves to be dismissed.”
The court said that “nothing objectionable” was found in the chats retrieved from Aryan’s phone. Justice Nitin Sambre Said “After going through” whatsapp chat Removed from the phone (of Aryan Khan), nothing objectionable can be seen to suggest that – he and Arbaaz – or the other accused persons with the three applicants have consensual and conspired to commit the offense under consideration Is.”
“No objectionable substance was found with Aryan Khan, it is not disputed,” the high court said in the 14-page order. It also stated that “the quantity of drugs confiscated from the possession of (Arbaaz and Munmun), if independently considered, is a small quantity, not a disputed fact.”
NS NCB On October 3, the three were arrested after raids on October 2 at International cruise Terminal on tip-off about an alleged party on a cruise that was about to depart from Mumbai to Goa.
The NCB’s case was that it had recovered 6 grams of charas from Arbaaz and 5 grams of hash from Munmun and arrested eight people on that day and arrested all the 20 accused so far in the case, one with commercial quantity . The agency, through Additional Solicitor Anil Singh, relied on the provisions of section 29 (offence of conspiracy) under the NDPS Act to claim that “cumulatively, drugs in commercial quantities were confiscated” from those accused in the case and It was a case of larger conspiracy and hence bail can be denied.
The HC needs to be “sensitive to the fact that there should be presence of basic material as evidence so as to prove the case of conspiracy against the applicants.”
“There is an absence on their record of such meeting of mind with other accused, who were named in the offence. The case of the prosecution that the applicants have admitted to the offense is also an offense under the NDPS Act. Here Even if it is commended, the maximum punishment prescribed for such offense is not more than one year. The applicants have already faced imprisonment for about 25 days,” Justice Sambre said, he added that he “was not even subjected to medical examination to determine whether he had consumed drugs at the relevant time”.
Aryan’s advice Mukul Rohatgi, Satish Maneshinde and Arbaaz’s counsel Amit Desai and Tarak Syed had argued that there should be a first meeting of minds before taking action for the offense of conspiracy. The High Court held that before mentioning any act of conspiracy, there must be a positive evidence of such an agreement as to an unlawful act or an unlawful act done in an unlawful manner and it must be first and foremost of mind. meeting should be
“There is hardly any positive evidence to convince this court that all the accused agreed to commit the unlawful act with common intention,” the order said. It said, “Rather, the investigation conducted till this date shows that (Aryan and Arbaaz) were traveling independent of (Munmun) and no meeting of Mann took place.”
In its argument released on Saturday, the High Court said “there is no material on record to infer that the applicants have conspired to commit a drug offence”, so it is difficult to infer at this stage whether they are in commercial quantities. are involved in the crime. , for bail. Aryan was released on October 30, while two others were later released from jail.
Justice Sambre clarified a position in the law and held that the “confessional statement” recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act can only be considered for the purpose of investigation and “to infer cannot be used as a tool that the applicants have committed an offense under the Act as alleged against them”.
The High Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Toofan Singh which held that NCB officers are also police officers and the confessional statements recorded by them were not admissible evidence and rejected the NCB’s claims that Khan and two others had His involvement was “admitted”. The High Court said, “Once the confessional statement of the applicants/accused cannot compel them to commit the offense in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh, claimed by the Respondent (NCB) that the accused persons admitted that their involvement in the offense deserves to be dismissed.”
,