Aryan Khan has been in jail since October 8 and has been denied bail twice before
Aryan Khan. File Pic
The Bombay High Court on Wednesady adjouned the hearing of bail applications filed by Aryan Khan, Munmun Dhamecha and Arbaaz Merchent till tomorrow (October 28). Justice Sambre said, the hearing will begin after 2:30 pm tomorrow.
The high court on Tuesday had decided to continue hearing Aryan Khan's bail plea on October 27 in connection with the drugs-on-cruise case. Senior advocate and former attorney general of India Mukul Rohatgi had appeared on behalf of Aryan Khan, son of Shah Rukh Khan.
On Tuesday, advocate Mukul Rohtagi appeared for Aryan Khan and argued that his arrest was wrongfully done as there was "no consumption or possession of drugs". Cases involving such small quantities of drug called for rehab rather than jail, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi added.
Aryan Khan has been in jail since October 8 and has been denied bail twice before.
Highlights from the hearing:
- Lawyers of accused Aryan Khan, Munmun Dhamecha & Arbaaz Merchant conclude arguments on their bail applications before Bombay HC; ASG Anil Singh for NCB will respond to the arguments tomorrow
- Accused Munmun Dhamecha's lawyer Kashif Khan Deshmukh, arguing for her bail before Bombay HC says, "I am a fashion model & do stage shows & ramp walks. I was invited by one person on the cruise for my professional obligations."
- Mukul Rohtagi, representing Aryan Khan, requests the Bombay High Court to go through the arrest memo again. He points out that at the time of Aryan Khan's arrest there were no charges of conspiracy
-
Accused Arbaaz's lawyer Amit Desai tells Bombay HC, "As far as WhatsApp chat is concerned, it is very clear that there is not a single chat which supports the conspiracy theory in this case. We're struggling with the problem of media trial."
- Desai continues, "The statement in the chats that they were going on cruise to have a blast was actually about consumption only, at maximum. As (Mukul) Rohatgi pointed out that this is a case of aborting. There was a plan which didn't happen."
- Accused Arbaaz Merchant's lawyer Amit Desai tells Bombay High Court, "There was medical test to ascertain the consumption. We were arrested for an offence, under Section 27 of NDPS Act, which didn't take place."
- Senior counsel Amit Desai, arguing for bail of accused Arbaaz Merchant, tells Bombay HC that based on assessment of articles recovered on Oct 3, only consumption was alleged. "If there was no conspiracy at that moment, how come conspiracy came later," he asks.
- "The arrest was illegal. I point out a Supreme Court judgement which says arrest is an extremely strong measure & should be exercised only to prevent the accused from committing another crime or preventing him from running away from law," Desai argues.
- Arbaz Merchant's lawyer Amit Desai, arguing for his bail, says the Arnesh Kumar judgement (by Supreme Court) is a diktat in this kind of cases of minor offences with punishment less than 7 years; says there was "no conspiracy thing" at the time of arrests.
- "Arrest memo of these 3 persons clearly indicates that they were not arrested for conspiracy but for possession/consumption. Conspiracy was added later. Special court was misled by prosecution that they were arrested for conspiracy," Desai submits.
- Senior counsel Amit Desai, arguing for bail of Arbaaz Merchant in drugs-on-cruise, tells Bombay HC, "There was no mention of allegation of "use" (of drugs) in the arrest memo. It talks about personal consumption only so the arrest memo itself demolishes the conspiracy thing."
(With ANI inputs)
