Aryan Khan’s Bail Plea Before the Bombay High Court Is Based On Inadmissible “Voluntary” Statements & WhatsApp Chats

In his application for bail in the cruise ship drugs case, Aryan Shahrukh Khan told the Bombay High Court that the Narcotic Control Bureau’s entire case is based on “voluntary” statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the Supreme Court ruled inadmissible in evidence last year in the Tofan Singh case. “…aside from inadmissible and illegally obtained evidence, there is no evidence against the Applicant to justify his detention and imprisonment.”

He further argued that a person’s status should not entitle him to any particular rights or benefits in a court of law, and that he should not be burdened with an additional liability, since all people are equal in a court of law.

That the Applicant’s bail should not be denied only because of the Applicant’s status. It is argued that everyone is equal before the law. Just as a person’s status should not confer any special privileges before a court of law, such a person should not bear any special liability when confronted with the law in the courts… Each case will have to be decided on its own merits – independent of the position of the accused.”

He went on to say that there is no legal presumption that just because someone is powerful, they will tamper with the investigation.

Khan’s bail application was denied by a sessions court on Wednesday. The Bombay High Court will hear his application for interim bail and final relief on Tuesday.

The NDPS Act’s section 37 bar will not apply.

The embargo imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, would not be applicable because no commercial quantity has been accused against Khan and all allegations relate to minor quantities.

“This is a case of no evidence at all,” the bail application argues. “Even if the court concludes that offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable, there is no evidence to charge the applicant with any infraction under the Act.”

The arrest panchnama did not reference section 29(conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, and the charge was added subsequently. Furthermore, he cannot be forced to accept recoveries from other defendants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close