Mumbai: While giving a guarantee to Aachit Kumar, a 22-year-old child studying in London and the defendant in the case of the Breast of Narcotics Liner Cruise, the Special NDPS court has argued that only based on the WhatsApp chat, it cannot be collected that he is used to provide contraband goods to Aryan Khan (23) and Arbaaz Merchant (26), especially when Khan, with whom he chatted, had guaranteed by the Bombay High Court.
While Kumar is given a guarantee on Saturday, detailed orders made available on Sundays.
Kumar was arrested on October 6 based on Khan’s current statement with withdrawn.
The prosecution has submitted that even though Kumar was found with a small amount of 2.6GM marijuana, his role was from suppliers.
Advocate Kumar Ashwin Thoin believes that “he is a young boy” studied in London, and objected to him called ‘peddlers’.
He further said that no one showed that there was a conspiracy between Khan and Kumar.
The court said it found substances in thool arguments.
Refusing the submission of prosecution that Kumar was Khan and ‘marijuana supplier’, a Special Judge VV Patil, “…
Respondents (Narcotics Control Bureau) failed to present specific evidence to show that the applicant (Kumar) dealing with business (Kumar) supplies contraband goods.”
Judge added: “Except the WhatsApp chat with accused of not.
1 (Khan), there is no other evidence to show that the applicant is involved in the activity.
Only based on the WhatsApp chat, cannot be collected that the applicant is used to provide contraband goods to USKON 1 & 2 numbers (Traders), especially when accused of not.
1, with whom there is a WhatsApp chat from the applicant, given a guarantee by HC.
”
The Special NDPS court also said that as Khan and Merchant, with whom Kumar was allegedly acting in a conspiracy, guarantees, conspiracy costs did not apply to him.
It added that since Khan, Merchant and Munmum Dhamecha (28) were given guarantees by HC on Thursday, Kumar was also entitled to a guarantee of parity.
Thool has filed a CCTV footage from the Powai Kumar building and argues that he was illegally detained before he was officially displayed as an arrest.
The court said: “As far as the opinion of the Petitioner regarding the granting guarantee by the reason for illegal detention, I do not think it is necessary to enter aspects …
because of the opposite, the applicant is entitled to be released on a guarantee.”