Mumbai: whatsapp chat extracted from Aryan Khan’s cellphone revealed “nothing unpleasant” there was also no evidence to show that he and his friend Arbaaz Merchant or Munmun Dhamecha and other joint accusations had hatched every conspiracy to commit drug violations, and they had already There was behind bars for 25 days, the Bombay High Court said in its reason, available on Saturday, giving them a guarantee on October 28.
“Applicants do not even experience a medical examination to determine whether at the relevant time, they have consumed drugs,” said Justice Nitin Sampre, whose reason to provide a guarantee occurred a month after the Special NDPS Judge VV Patil in the court session had found the same chat showing “References for heavy amounts and hard medicines”.
It was not in the dispute that Khan (23), son of actor Shah Rukh Khan, was not found to have any medicine, the word command argued HC.
Also not in the dispute that the number of drugs allegedly seized from Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha, to whom also HC Bailed Bail, “is a small amount,” said command.
NCB has caught the trio on October 3 after October 2 attacks.
They were sent to detention in October 7.
NCB said it seized 6 grams of Charas from traders at the terminal gate.
Merchant, said NCB, plans to smoke on a cruise ship and he traveled with Khan, therefore in possession of conscious Khan, while 5 grams of hashish confiscated from the Dhamecha cabin on the ship.
Khan was invited as a guest on a cruise by organizers.
HC said, “Even if it is valued, the maximum punishment prescribed is no more than a year for such a violation.
Applicants have suffered detention for almost 25 days.” HC issued a guarantee condition and set the number of bonds on October 29.
HC said “must be sensitive to the fact that there must be basic material in the form of evidence to prove the case of conspiracy to applicants”.
Just because applicants traveled with shipping, “by itself it cannot be called a satisfying foundation to request the provisions of Part 29 (conspiracy) to the trio,” reasoned HC.
It refused NCB shipments carried out through additional lawyers General Anil Singh that there was a conspiracy and because “the number of cumulative commercial drugs was caused by the people accused of”, “intention” of the trio to commit to NDPS laws must be considered and guarantee.
rejected.
Khan’s adviser – beat Rohatgi, Amit Desai and Satish Maneshinde – and Merchant Advisers, Desai and Taraq Sayed, argued that for a violation of conspiracy, the first time there must be consensus through the “mind meeting” before the action was carried out, and here there was no.
ASG said the conspiracy was difficult to prove at the guarantee stage.
None of them have criminal antecedens, the command word.
Lawyer Dhamecha Ali Kaashif Khan argued he was also invited to be a guest.
Justice Sampre said to conclude conspiracy actions in parts of the trio with other coakes in this case, “There must be positive evidence about such an agreement to carry out actions that violate legal or legitimate actions by the facility that violates the law and the agreement must overtake with meeting the mind .
“His order noted,” There is no material in the record they have such a meeting of thoughts with other defendants mentioned in the violation.
” There is almost no positive evidence to convince this court that all accused of general intentions agree to take actions that violate the law “, said Ordo,” the opposite of the probe carried out until this date shows that (Arya and Arbaaz) traveled independently of (Dhamecha) traveling.) And there is no meeting of mind.
“” There are no ingredients that are noted to conclude that applicants have hatched conspiracies “to commit drug violations, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that they are involved in commercial quantity violations, therefore strict provisions such as parts such as part 37 placed a greater examination at the court before granting the guarantee “will be prime facie not interested in the case in hand”.
“It is difficult to conclude that applicants are involved in commercial quantity violations,” said Justice Sambre.
He said the “recognition statement” which was recorded based on Section 67 of the NDPS law could only be considered for the purpose of investigation and “it cannot be used as a tool to draw inference that applicants have committed violations”.